Energy Policy

Lord Jenkin of Roding: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why, when the energy review has been set up to consider, among other matters, the case for new nuclear build, they support the proposal by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd to sell Westinghouse Electric Company.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government considered the matter carefully before agreeing to the sale process and do not believe that ownership of Westinghouse is likely to have any bearing on the UK's ability to satisfy any future nuclear energy needs. The energy review team continues to be content with this position. If the private sector brought forward proposals to build new nuclear, an important element of the proposals would be the choice of new plant design. In that choice, it would be important that the private sector were not influenced by whether a given technology was government-owned or not.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: That may be all very well, my Lords, but does the Minister not appreciate the irony of the fact that on the very day that the Government published their energy review, which clearly enhances the prospects of new nuclear build in this country, BNFL finally signed the agreement to sell Westinghouse to Toshiba? The apparent conflict between those two policies is bizarre. I understand that it is now a done deal, apart from regulatory requirements, so one has to move on. Will the noble Lord give an undertaking that the Government will deploy some of the proceeds from the sale to BNFL to enhance and develop this country's remaining nuclear capability, perhaps by financing BNFL's research arm, Nexia Solutions?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the decision to sell was taken last June. The noble Lord has alighted on a coincidence with regard to dates, but the policy has been generated over many months. I cannot give the undertaking that he wants with regard to the proceeds. He will recognise that we are undertaking a further review of the country's energy requirements and that the issue of new nuclear build is within that framework; likewise, therefore, the question of any government resources that might be devoted to that end, although it will be market forces that determine a great deal of the build for Britain's energy needs in the future.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the low-carbon solutions that are looked for in the energy White Paper will include nuclear? On what basis will the Government make the calculation of how many grammes of carbon dioxide are produced per kilowatt hour? Bill Coley, from British Energy, has stated that new-build nuclear, which I believe must be based on the designs that we are discussing, produces five grammes of carbon dioxide. Are the Government happy with that figure and have they consulted the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority on whether that is a realistic amount of carbon, considering the long tail that nuclear decommissioning will cost in carbon?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord has not so much asked a question but advocated his usual viewpoint in his usual penetrative way. However, he will not get past my defences. The carbon code and the future of British energy policy are related to the review that we are undertaking. I assure him that, of course, we shall pursue all the factors necessary for us to meet the energy needs of the nation over the foreseeable decades, while at the same time meeting all international requirements on carbon emissions.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, can the Minister give us some comfort on this point? If we are to lose the only nuclear-build organisation in this country—it has been sold, it is a done deal and there are all sorts of reasons for and against it—will some of the proceeds, as my noble friend said, be directed towards maintaining a group of people of the highest possible calibre so that, if we go down the nuclear route, at least we shall have an in-house team in this country able to assess the pros and cons of various other options and market forces? The last thing we need is to find ourselves with no capability or general knowledge on nuclear matters. Perhaps the Minister could reconsider his comment and bring to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that would be very worth while in the long term.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am not sure that I need to bring this to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government already devote resources and are committed to the continuance of the resources that sustain our nuclear skills. There is no question that ever since the first energy White Paper, we have recognised the necessity, as we said at the time, to keep the nuclear option open. That necessitated investment in skills, and we shall continue with such investment. Therefore, I assure the noble Baroness that, if additional skills and additional people are identified as being required in this area, a proper request on Government would be to enhance the skills of the nation, and we shall meet that if that event occurs.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that there was not unanimity on the decision in the industry? Why does he think that certain people opposed it as vigorously as they did?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is an interesting exercise in conjecture. I take it that some people would have contended that the continuance of a public stake in this area might bring additional rewards to taxpayers, which is an important concern. Of course, they would also need to take into account that this is a high-risk industry; the bids that the nuclear industry may make for a potential new-build in China are high-risk. My noble friend might think that the public ought not to sustain such a high-risk strategy.

Lord Bridges: My Lords, in the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, wrote to me some days ago explaining the Government's desire to withdraw from the association with Westinghouse, he gave as a reason the matter to which the Minister has just referred; namely, the apparent wish of Westinghouse to sell nuclear reactors to China. The letter concluded that the Minister felt it was too much to expose us to that particular risk. It might have been risky, but it was also an opportunity, and now we have lost it.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is the noble Lord's considered judgment. I am at least consoled by the fact that my previous answer is consistent with what my noble friend had written to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. I can only say that my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville is right: there was a balance to be struck on these factors. The Government have come down on one side, and I note that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, may be on the other.

Foreign-born Mothers

Lord Renton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether it is the case, as recently reported, that 20 per cent of all births in England and Wales in 2004 were to foreign-born mothers.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is broadly accurate. Birth registrations gave a total of 124,563 live births occurring in 2004 to mothers who were born outside the United Kingdom, out of a total of 639,721 live births. That has been presented as 19.5 per cent in published statistics and, in turn, rounded to 20 per cent in press reporting. What is not reported is that 7 per cent of that 19.5 per cent have a British-born father and that the 19.5 per cent figure includes those who were born abroad but have United Kingdom citizenship. The figure also ignores the valuable and disproportionately positive contribution that migrants make to the United Kingdom economy.

Lord Renton: My Lords, should we not bear in mind that in most countries where British mothers give birth to children, those children do not have British nationality but will have the nationality of the country where they were born? On the other hand, is it not highly desirable that children born here of foreign parents should not have British nationality because it would give them a status in this country that they may never be here to enjoy again? I know that this is a big subject but, bearing in mind the complexities of it, would the Government consider a change in the law?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not sure where the noble Lord is coming from on this, but I rather gather that he is unhappy with the statistics that I presented to your Lordships' House. We are happy with our interpretation of the law, and we accept that it is a complex matter of interpretation. But I am overwhelmingly left with the impression that migration to the United Kingdom is a force for good and a very positive thing, not just economically but in diversity and in what generations of migrants have brought to the culture and quality of life of this country.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. My understanding is that a child born of foreign-born parents in this country, where those parents have not had British nationality conferred on them, remains a child of the nation of the parents' birth.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, in most circumstances that is absolutely right.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, my children were born here at a time when they would be British although they had two Australian parents. I clearly recall when your Lordships' House changed the law on that. If my children were born here tomorrow, they would not be British. As I understand it, they must have one British parent. It used to be that if you overflew the country and dropped off the plane to have the baby, it would be British because it was born here, but that was changed some time ago.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the noble Baroness for her interpretation.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister agree that successive census data have confirmed that a large number of foreign-born people who enter this country, particularly women of child-bearing age, are economically active? In a country that is ageing so rapidly and where the birth rate has dropped, should we not be celebrating the fact that these people are contributing so fundamentally to economic development?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am inevitably drawn to agreeing with the noble Lord. The 2001 figures show that migrants generated 10 per cent of GDP despite accounting for 8 per cent of the working-age population. In 2003–04, migrants accounted for 10 per cent of government tax receipts but 8.1 per cent of government expenditure. Obviously those are broad figures that no doubt include a lot of other detail within them, but the case is inescapable. Migrants to our country not only help the economy but contribute an enormous amount to British life. We should celebrate that.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is the Minister able to say whether the Government think that the figure of 20 per cent is too great, too little, or exactly right and in accordance with a policy that they have pursued?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is a statistic. I have tried to be as factual with your Lordships' House as I can. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is at variance with his party leader on the subject of migration. Perhaps he is trying to make a political point. It may be worth reminding him that David Cameron recently said:
	"Over the centuries, Britain has profited immeasurably from the skills and vitality brought to these islands by immigrants from all over the world".
	Perhaps the noble Lord does not agree with him.

Lord Soley: My Lords, I do not think that I can remember an occasion when I have gone up to the parents of a newborn child and said, "Can you tell me where you are from?". That is not the first question that you ask a parent; you usually congratulate them on having a child. As we are so proud of our nation's history, because it is so diverse and has given us such strength, not just in recent years but over hundreds of years, we really ought to be very proud of that diversity and strength. Let us stop knocking it in the way that some people do by innuendo.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. Not for the first time, he has hit the nail on the head.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer a question and give a straight answer instead of asking me a question?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I think that from time to time I am entitled to pose a question to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. However, I have given a straight statistical answer, and I am happy with that.

Lord Renton: My Lords, have not the questions put by noble Lords indicated that it would be far better if there were a degree of flexibility in this matter?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there is, and I think that we have benefited from that. I am grateful for the noble Lord's contribution.

Railways: Franchises

Lord Bradshaw: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the past performance of a prospective franchisee plays any part in the evaluation of bids for railway franchises.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the track record of applicants forms part of the assessment process at the pre-qualification stage. Later, at the invitation-to-tender stage, the selection of the successful franchisee is based on the bid submitted. Each bid is subject to a full evaluation. That includes an assessment of how robust and deliverable the bidders' plans are for punctuality, management of crowding and customer service.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, he is saying that it is all based on what franchisees, or prospective franchisees, promise to do in future. Many benefits are back-loaded into the franchise, so that they come in years seven, eight, nine and 10. Would it not be much better to take into account the actual performance of franchisees? In respect of those who give good service while they have a franchise—all recent bidders have had franchises— should there not be a system where, if they exceed performance in one year, they effectively get a gold star and, when they fail, as I fear they often do, they get a black mark? Then, when they bid again, it would be obvious to the public who had done what they said they would do, so that that was not some black art carried out by consultants in the Department for Transport that obfuscates the whole process.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is not a black art but a complicated process, as the noble Lord will recognise. He says that it ought to be wrong for bidders not to have their past performance evaluated if they already hold a franchise. He stresses that it is impossible for that to happen, but I assure him that past performance is taken into account.
	On the final submission of bids, when what is judged is the ability to deliver against strict and clear criteria, he is right. The companies that succeed do so because they produce the best bids. Perhaps he has in mind a case in which a franchise was won by a group when its performance might not have been too good. When, for instance, First Group bid for the First Great Western franchise, there were clear factors at play, especially with the crucial line from Reading to Paddington, which significantly affected that group's capacity to perform there. We are, however, satisfied with its commitment to future investment and performance.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what plans the Department for Transport has for reducing the rail network and, in particular, the number of small railway lines throughout the country? If not, can he explain why the department has today published a consultation document to create guidance on the process for closing railway lines?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we are concerned that debates about any closures should take place with the fullest possible public participation, because we know that people value railways. Some services offered at present receive little patronage and need to be evaluated. But those services are in the franchise bids made by companies, and I assure the noble Lord that, as the House would expect, we make judgments on franchise bids on the basis of fare-paying passengers' expectations and proper contributions and on the basis of what is fair to the taxpayer.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, can the Minister tell us why, after eight years, the Government are now looking at reducing railway services in rural areas, bearing it mind that in every one of the past eight years rail usage has gone up? On a network that is far smaller than it was in the days before Beeching, there are now more passengers using the railways. Why are the Government now trying to shut railways down?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government are committed to enhancing rail passenger numbers. We all know that rail is the most environmentally friendly form of public transport and that the expansion in recent years is a reflection of investment and strategies for which the Government take considerable credit. But even in circumstances where on some of our main lines we are seeing a substantial increase in the service, in other areas the passenger service receives little patronage. The noble Lord may have seen that one stalwart individual travels every day as the only passenger on a train in a valiant attempt to keep that line open.

Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I declare an interest because I use a small line from Wiltshire to Paddington many days a week. Is the Minister aware that one is seldom asked to pay for a ticket on that train? If one were so inclined, one could frequently travel for free. Many commuters who use that train have a strong feeling that that is part of a deliberate policy so that the people who use the train cannot be counted.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I think that I can disavow the notion that it is a deliberate policy. The noble Baroness may recognise that the difficulty may be that regular inspections on a line with a limited number of passengers might cost a great deal more than is received in revenue. That is part of the problem.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, I declare an interest. I had a great sense of déjà vu listening to that exchange. Will the Minister accept that the key problem with rural railway lines is that they can never break even because passengers do not travel throughout the 24 hours, yet the infrastructure for safety and everything else remains incredibly expensive? The Government should wake up and realise that in most countries that have this problem, the governments openly have a subsidy to that section for social benefit so that everybody knows where they are.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with a great knowledge of the challenges to the railways. However, I think that he will recognise that of course there is cross-subsidy of some rural routes, for obvious reasons. First, they link up with main lines, which is essential for passengers who use main line services. Secondly, they are of conspicuous social benefit in areas where the local rural economy might face considerable decline if the service was withdrawn. Of course that is an element in the calculation. I have already mentioned at least one case where it is fairly obvious that decisions have to be taken, which is at the point where the train company's other fare-paying passengers are subsidising very limited traffic, as is sometimes the case.

Zimbabwe

Lord Blaker: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to the resolution criticising the human rights situation in Zimbabwe, adopted by the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights' recent meeting in Banjul, Gambia.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the human rights situation in Zimbabwe remains appalling. The resolution by the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights reflects growing international consensus that Zimbabwe is suffering from chronic misgovernance. Although the African Union has not yet endorsed the resolution, its Khartoum summit in January gave Zimbabwe three months to respond. We encourage African leaders to press Mugabe. We urge the Government of Zimbabwe to end their abuse of human rights and to restore the rule of law and democratic governance.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, as the report by the commission was one of the first on Zimbabwe put forward by an African intergovernmental or interparliamentary body, is it not significant that it contained such frank criticism of the brutal and ruinous regime of Mr Mugabe? Is it not therefore a pity that the ministerial meeting did not decide to study it more seriously and pass a resolution supporting the report of the commission? As the African Union was founded recently to replace the Organisation of African Unity, which was wound up because it suffered discredit, is it not important that the African Union should act robustly on a report of this kind so as to escape suffering a fate similar to that of the OAU?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, it would be wholly desirable for the African Union to take—even if it paused for three months to give Zimbabwe the opportunity to respond—the fullest opportunity to ensure that its critical analysis is upheld. I agree with the noble Lord in those terms. It is fair to say that we have seen several useful initiatives of a kind that we have not seen before. President Obasanjo and President Konare sent a delegation which, unfortunately, Mugabe would not receive. Kofi Annan sent Anna Tibaijuka, who wrote an outstanding and damning report, and recently the South Africans have, for the first time, placed political conditions on any further financial help, which thus far they have declined to provide. We are seeing the beginning of the tide turning, and I am happy that that has happened.

Lord Acton: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the South African Government have reacted to this resolution on their own?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am not aware of a reaction specifically on the part of South Africa, but I have no reason to believe that it has stood aside from the determination to review the issue, fully and completely, in three months' time.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, considering that the African summit in Khartoum last week ignored not only the ACHPR report but also the report of Mrs Anna Tibaijuka on Operation Murambatsvina, which the Minister has just mentioned and which stated that 700,000 people were made homeless and destitute, does he consider that it would be an idea for the Secretary-General of the UN, Mr Kofi Annan, to visit the OAU and the SADC countries to see what co-operation could be engendered between the UN and the AU in implementing Mrs Tibaijuka's recommendations?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, it would not be entirely fair to characterise the African Union as having ignored the report. It set a timetable to look at the report and to reach conclusions. At the conference of the African Union, Secretary-General Kofi Annan was industrious in trying to ensure that there were proper considerations of the criminal regime in Zimbabwe. As a result, the Tibaijuka mission was sent. I think that we are seeing a tide beginning to flow in the African Union, which is to be welcomed.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, the commission says in its report that it is,
	"deeply concerned by the continued undermining of the independence of the judiciary through the harassment and intimidation of independent judges . . . and the lack of respect for the rule of law".
	It calls on the Government of Zimbabwe to uphold the principle of the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. Do Her Majesty's Government share and endorse the recommendations of the African states, and are they prepared to take any action open to them to support the independence of the judiciary and to be seen to do so whenever the opportunity arises?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, we wholly support that proposition. Indeed, it was one of the issues on the governance front that was on the African side of the bargain at the Gleneagles conference, if I can describe the outcome of that conference in those terms. We shall do our level best to support the judiciary when it acts in a way that reflects its separation and entitlement to comment on all matters within its proper remit.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, did the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights also pass a resolution on northern Uganda, where the human rights of the Acholi people have been abused amid appalling suffering for many years while the conflict has been unnecessarily and cynically prolonged?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I believe that there is a report. I do not know whether it is in its final state yet, but I shall check that.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord is speaking from the Front Bench, but we have reached 30 minutes, and the normal rule is that after 30 minutes Question Time is over.

Identity Cards Bill

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	Clause 17 [Power to provide for checks on the Register]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 65:
	Page 15, line 41, at end insert—
	"( ) Regulations under this section may not authorise the provision to any person of information falling within paragraph 9 of Schedule 1."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I think that I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 66:
	Page 16, line 12, leave out "by the prescribed person in the prescribed manner." and insert "in the prescribed manner by the person specified in or determined under the regulations.
	( ) The power of the Secretary of State under this section to provide information about an individual to another person is exercisable only where the provision of the information is subject to the satisfaction in relation to that other person of conditions imposed under subsection (3)(a) and (b)."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am concerned about the confusion which may have arisen at the beginning of proceedings this afternoon. I am looking at the list of today's groupings provided by the Government Whips' Office, which clearly states that the first amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, has not been debated. Perhaps my recollection of debates over the past two days is somewhat hazy, but I had anticipated that the noble Baroness would introduce the amendment. I am a little concerned that we have not had the opportunity perhaps to welcome the amendment and for the House to understand what it is all about.
	The confusion is most unfortunate. It may well be that we will have to return to the matter on Third Reading. Government Amendment No. 65 was the subject of a difficult debate on Schedule 9, and it is not a matter that we wish simply to pass over.
	Amendment No.66A will be moved by my noble friend Lady Seccombe.

Baroness Seccombe: moved Amendment No. 66A:
	Page 16, line 38, leave out paragraph (a).

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, Amendment No. 66A would remove subsection (2)(a) from Clause 18. As the Explanatory Notes inform us, Clause 18 sets out that there may be no requirement on individuals by organisations to produce an ID card as the only acceptable proof of identity before a move to compulsion, other than in the circumstances set out in subsection (2). The Explanatory Notes go on to explain that the exceptions in subsection (2) include where there is,
	"a specific requirement for a check on an individual's ID card or against the Register under Clause 15"—
	that is, the power to make public services conditional on ID checks—
	"or in accordance with provisions under another enactment; where the organisation allows for reasonable alternative methods of proving identity; or when it is compulsory for the individual to register".
	Paragraph (a) refers specifically to Clause 15 and provisions that may be made by another enactment. My fear is that this subsection could potentially catch individuals, private organisations and/or private businesses. It is one thing to require that access to all government-funded public services needs an ID check but quite another to impose on privately run businesses the need for compulsory ID checks, using this system, and, in turn, all the currently unknown costs that will go with that—for example, the cost of readers or of making requests to the system. In addition to imposing such costs, the subsection removes a degree of choice that businesses should themselves make regarding ID checks. I know that the Government disagree with this, but we should not be a nanny state.
	The particular open-ended reference to the phrase, "in accordance with provisions made by order under any other enactment" is very far-reaching. No doubt the Minister will argue the need for flexibility. But what is to stop future enactments in theory from compelling something silly like a fairground owner checking everyone's ID card to make sure they are old enough to have a go on specific rides, be they too old or too young? Will the Minister offer to see what changes can be made to the legislation to ensure that none of the above will occur? What assurances can she give that subsection (2)(a) will not be used in this manner? I beg to move.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I should like to make a comment about the proposed removal of the subsection by reference to Clause 15, to which it relates. I was hoping for some assistance from the noble Baroness to confirm what I think was said at an earlier stage, although I cannot remember which day it was as there have been so many. Clause 15 is important because it makes public services susceptible to being conditional upon someone having an ID card. Subsection (2) refers to the fact that regulations cannot, however, make that requirement effective with regard to public services provided free. The classic case would be someone getting National Health Service treatment. Clause 15(2) makes it clear that a citizen cannot be forced to have an ID card before he or she gets National Health Service treatment. The reference in subsection (2) is to public services provided free of charge.
	The point was raised before, and I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I raise it again. I am sure that we all want to be quite sure, at virtually the last gasp, that, in considering this amendment and Clause 18, we do not inadvertently get wrong what may happen under Clause 15.
	My question for the noble Baroness is this. If one goes to the chemist with a prescription from one's doctor, unless one is in one of the exempt categories—OAP, child, or certain other conditions—one pays a prescription charge. That would fall outside the exemption in Clause 15(2), which is only where the service is provided free. I apologise to the House for what must seem a complicated question, but unfortunately it is a complicated Bill and sometimes one cannot get around the complexities. I am anxious to ensure that we do not leave the Bill in a state where a hullaballoo arises hereafter because people who have to pay whatever the prescription charge is are suddenly told that they are not within the exemption to Clause 15(2) and asked to produce an ID card. That is the question that arises from the amendment, seeing that it will have a direct impact on Clause 15. I would be most grateful if the Minister would give us some light on the matter. I mentioned it to her officials earlier in the day, so I hope that it will not be such a bombshell as it might sound.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is right in saying that government Amendment No. 65, which would have led into the conversation we have just had on Clause 15, would bite on this. For the House's clarification it might help if I explained how Amendment No. 65 fits in with the response I intend to make on her Amendment No. 66A, because the two go together. In doing so, I hope to deal also with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, on free prescriptions, not least because he is talking about Amendment No. 33, which he moved on the first day of Report on 16 January. If that suits the House it might get us back to where we should be.
	My Amendment No. 65, which was passed by the House, has the effect of preventing the information contained in paragraph 9 of Schedule 1, which is the audit log, from being provided under Clause 17 to public service providers. Noble Lords will recall that Clause 17 enables the provision of information to public service providers for the purpose of verifying the identity of a person who has applied for a service. As my amendment has been accepted, the audit log will no longer be provided under Clause 17. The amendment I moved and that was passed was tabled in response to the concerns raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. I was grateful to him for raising that issue so that we could deal with it.
	The noble Lord asked about prescription charges. His amendment would have given the individuals the option of whether an audit log should be kept of those occasions when an identity card is checked with the individual's consent under Clause 14. For the reasons that I gave earlier, which were recorded in Hansard, we believed that it would be wrong to allow the possibility of individuals deciding for themselves whether some checks against the register should be logged. If that happened, there would be no record to use in cases of complaint and it would mean that a fraudster trying to use someone else's card could insist that no record was kept of that transaction.
	At the same time, we thought again about the second part of the noble Lord's amendment. I hope that we have made it plain that it is no part of our intention to compel people to produce ID cards for prescriptions that are free. I know that there was a debate about whether we would need to do so for ophthalmic and other issues—dental treatment was mentioned on the previous occasion—and I want to make it clear that it is not our intention so to do. We do not think that the noble Lord's concern is well founded.
	I turn to the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 66A, which would remove paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of Clause 18. As noble Lords know, Clause 18 is designed to provide a general safeguard that in most circumstances people will not be forced to use an identity card to prove identity in advance of compulsion. Thus, in line with Clause 18(1), it would not be possible for, let us say, a bank or building society to require a customer to produce an identity card as the only acceptable proof of identity in advance of compulsion. The safeguard in Clause 18 still allows an identity card to be one of the methods accepted for proving identity, provided that a reasonable alternative method of establishing identity is also allowed. It would no longer apply once it is compulsory to register and to hold an identity card.
	The words in Clause 18(2)(a) that would be removed by Amendment No. 66A serve a purpose. This subsection would allow a requirement to be imposed to produce an identity card in advance of compulsion if it had been imposed under Clause 15, which deals with making public services conditional on the production of an identity card or any other enactment. However, any regulations under Clause 15 would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so Parliament would have the opportunity to debate and agree them. Moreover, as provided in Clause 15(2), any such regulation in advance of compulsion could not apply to the payment of benefits or to the delivery of any free public service. I hope that gives as clear a reassurance as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, would wish for.
	We should not rule out in future providing that identity cards be required to be produced if that is a condition of other legislation, which also would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Accordingly, we believe that the drafting of Clause 18 is satisfactory. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I thank her for her explanation of all these matters; they are scarcely simple. However, the language of Clause 15 is different from the policy that the Minister enunciated. She was clear about the policy, and I accept what she said. The problem is that the wording of Clause 15(2) does not follow the policy; it is wider. If one supposes different circumstances, a different Minister and a different government, then one does not have the reassurance that the Minister gave to the House. The classic case of a prescription for which a member of the public has to pay something would not fall within the exemption in Clause 15(2). Will the Minister think again about this before Third Reading, because it is an important point? It is not good law to include in a Bill a provision that is dependent on policy. Will the Minister come back with some wording that takes account of my point?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am certainly happy to look at the matter, but, as I said earlier, the safeguard exists through the affirmative resolution procedure. Any regulations for monitoring this situation would have to come before both Houses for debate and therefore be agreed in the way in which we have clearly set out.
	I have also given the assurance that it is not our intention that the provision should operate in a way that would make an identity card compulsory for free prescriptions. I have given assurances also in relation to those other matters.
	I hope that I have explained why we are unable to accept the wording of Amendment No. 66A of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, which was spoken to so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe. I recognise that she was trying to find a safeguard against the enforced use of identity checks in advance of compulsion. She made that clear in the way in which she explained the amendment. In giving further consideration to Clause 18 safeguards, we are investigating the possibility that a loophole exists. The provisions in Clause 18 are designed to ensure that organisations cannot insist on production of an identity card as exclusive means of proving identity prior to compulsion unless, as we have already discussed, this has been required by an affirmative order under the required identity checks provisions for public services in Clauses 15 to 17 or in accordance with another enactment.
	However, the clause does not deal expressly with the possibility of an organisation requiring a person to obtain a copy of their record held on the national identity register by exercising their subject access rights under the Data Protection Act or by making use of the proposed online facility to check one's own records. We should properly look at and tighten up all those things. However, if we do what I have indicated for Clause 18, I do not think that the noble Lord's concern about Clause 15 will be a problem, particularly bearing in mind the assurance I have given. Should we conclude that there is a need to tighten matters, we will return with a government amendment to Clause 18 at Third Reading. My officials will be in touch with the Information Commissioner's Office to alert it to the precise details of the amendment before it is tabled. I hope that by looking at Clause 18 we will be able to close any gaps that remain and that the noble Lord would be content with what we now have in Clause 15, limited as it is by the tightening that we hope to be able to do on Clause 18. I think that that meets the needs both of the noble Baroness and of the noble Lord as well.

Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for explaining Amendment No. 65. We realise that it was an innocent error but felt that it was important that the reason for the government amendment should be put on the record. I would like to take the opportunity between now and Third Reading to read what has been said today about Amendment No. 66A and to see what does go down on the Marshalled List for that day. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 19 [Public authorities etc.]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 68:
	Page 18, line 21, at end insert—
	"( ) The Secretary of State must not make an order or regulations containing (with or without other provision) any provision that he is authorised to make under this section unless a draft of the order or regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 20 [Prevention and detection of crime]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 69:
	Page 19, line 1, leave out "of a person with" and insert "to a person of"

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, these are minor drafting amendments to Clause 20, which have been tabled in response to comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, to whom we are most grateful. I hope that these amendments satisfy him entirely. Of course, it is never entirely possible to satisfy the noble Lord, but we do our best. I can assure noble Lords that these amendments do not change the meaning or operation of the clause in any way. I beg to move.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. My satisfaction is more than entire.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 70:
	Page 19, line 8, leave out "of a person with" and insert "to a person of"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 71 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	Clause 21 [Correcting inaccurate or incomplete information]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 72:
	Page 19, line 43, leave out "for being" and insert "to be"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 22 [Power to authorise provision of information in other circumstances]:
	[Amendment No. 72A not moved.]
	[Amendments Nos. 72B and 72C had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	Clause 23 [Rules for providing information without individual's consent]:

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: moved Amendment No. 72D:
	Page 20, line 35, at end insert "; and
	(c) requiring the persons referred to in paragraph (b) to act reasonably and proportionately in providing information under sections 19 to 22"

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I can move this amendment very quickly. Clause 23, to which it refers, sets out the rules for providing information—that is, information from the national register—without an individual's consent. Therefore it is a singularly important clause. In subsection (2), the Secretary of State may make regulations to make those requirements of public authorities and of persons authorised by public authorities. My feeling is that the inclusion of the amendment would be extremely helpful at an important part of the Bill and would give clear guidance both to the many officials who have to construe this remarkably complex piece of law hereafter and, even more important, to the citizen who has to resort to it.
	On many occasions in these debates, many of us have said that this is a citizens' Bill. It is not one of those technical measures that one knows will be resorted to only by professionals; potentially it will affect tens of millions of our fellow citizens. My amendment would require the persons referred to earlier in the subsection—that is, the public authorities—
	"to act reasonably and proportionately in providing information under sections 19 to 22".
	I am well aware that under the Human Rights Act there is an implied obligation in all circumstances, one can broadly say, for authorities—that is, public bodies—to act reasonably and proportionately. Therefore, it is legitimate for the Government to say in response to the amendment, "This is superfluous. Just trot along to the Human Rights Act and look at the relevant subsections and Bob's your uncle". Well, Bob is not my uncle because I do not know anything about the Human Rights Act. I do not want to be cast in that direction, but I do want to have at a hugely important point in the Bill a simple, clear statement that anyone who is asked to provide information under this clause—it can be highly sensitive information—will have to act reasonably and proportionately.
	The other point that I draw to the attention of the House is that I have sought to avoid this obligation falling on the shoulders of the Secretary of State by the way in which I have worded the amendment. It would simply give the Secretary of State the power to make provisions requiring the persons who are to provide information to act in this way. So it cannot be argued that the state bureaucracy is unduly trammelled because at every turn it will have to make an individual judgment on every single individual provision of information. That will fall to the authority providing information to determine, as provided for by the amendment.
	I hope that the Government will—as they do on occasions, it must be said—provide words which are implied by the Humans Rights Act or, indeed, that they will put in provisions that are not strictly necessary at all. Perhaps I may refer the noble Baroness, who is already looking sceptically in my direction, to Clause 16(6). It is a completely superfluous and unnecessary subsection but, as it is to give an impression which the Government assiduously try to implant in the public mind, it is included, although it is completely superfluous in literal, necessary terms.
	I hope very much that the Government will—as, to be fair, they have done on one or two occasions—make an amendment to the Bill that has regard to the fact that it is Joe Bloggs who is affected by these provisions. We do not want to drive every person to a lawyer in order that they may understand where they stand, and the same goes for civil servants at all levels. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I support the intentions behind the noble Lord's amendment, although I do not support the way in which he is going about it. I certainly agree with him that it is important that there is clarity in the Bill with regard to proportionality. Here, we are trying to get at the issue of good governance and to obtain from the Government reassurance that that will be pursued in these matters.
	I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is saying. It is implied here that one has the protection of the Human Rights Act, but that is an onerous way for the ordinary citizen to obtain redress. The question to which we are trying to get an answer from the Minister is as follows. If the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is not made, what other clear, simple mode of redress is there for the citizen who believes that those who acted on behalf of the Secretary of State had acted unreasonably and disproportionately? I am trying to pick my words carefully here. The reason why I do not support the noble Lord 100 per cent is that, as noble Lords will notice from the Marshalled List, my noble friend Lord Northesk has tabled a later amendment which approaches the issue from a different angle.
	I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is saying—that is why he has not put an immediate duty on the Secretary of State. When we are looking at a system that is being introduced by the Secretary of State, and there is an essential issue of good governance, it should be for the Secretary of State to take responsibility. I look forward to my noble friend Lord Northesk's introduction of his amendment, when we may, perhaps, be able to explore those issues in greater detail.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, it seems to me that the amendment is merely trying to define that the civil servants who will be giving out the information should act in a particular way; it leaves the Secretary of State to lay that down quite clearly. As good civil servants do not act ultra vires, and will tend always to follow the letter of what is laid down, I would have thought the amendment to be very sensible. It leaves flexibility, while at the same time making it quite clear that there is a duty for a civil servant to act in a particular way. I cannot see the disadvantage in this. A lot of people are very worried about some of the things that could be done under this Bill, and it seems to me that this is a very neat way of trying to allay some fears.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, foreshadowed my response to why this is unnecessary. I have to tell the noble Lord that Bob is my grandfather, my uncle, my brother and my nephew, so as far as that is concerned, we think that the Human Rights Act is enough here. I also need to say to the noble Lord, with reference to Clause 16, that it is not superfluous or meaningless: it imposes a duty to consult where regulations are made under that clause and there is an existing statutory duty under other relevant powers. It has some real function and is therefore significantly different from the measure suggested by the noble Lord.
	I understand what the noble Lady, Baroness Anelay of St Johns, says about agreeing in essence; we too think it absolutely essential that there should be proper and good governance in this matter. The proposition that the powers under Clauses 19 to 22 must be exercised "reasonably and proportionately" derives from the Secretary of State's public law duties and the provisions of the Human Rights Act. As ever, we are most reluctant to reiterate obligations that already apply. The clear implication of doing so would be that without such wording it would be lawful for a power to be exercised unreasonably or disproportionately. I am sure that that is not what the noble Lord intends.
	Aside from that, we unfortunately consider the noble Lord's amendment to be flawed, in that it seeks to place the duty to act reasonably and proportionately directly upon civil servants. As noble Lords are aware, under the aspect of our constitution often referred to as the Carltona principle, the Secretary of State remains accountable for the actions of his officials. Those actions are, constitutionally speaking, his actions, albeit carried out by his civil servants. If information were provided under Clauses 19 to 22 in an unreasonable or disproportionate way, it would be the Secretary of State who would answer for it.
	Nevertheless, I recognise the sentiment behind the noble Lord's amendment; we are acutely aware that those individuals whose job it will be to provide information under Clauses 19 to 22 will have to be well trained in order to ensure that such disclosures are within the terms of legislation—that they are reasonable and proportionate. There will be guidance and procedures to this effect. The power to provide information without consent does not mean that the information must or should be provided whenever it is requested. We will make sure that procedures not only govern the way in which a request for information is made, but ensure that the information is provided only when the request is reasonable and proportionate.
	I would, therefore, ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I very much take on board what the noble Lady says about making procedures clear, simple and available to members of the public. Indeed, we have sought to do that with administrative law generally, making it easier for people to challenge and, by the way in which they challenge, enabling us to be sure that they are taking full opportunity to do so.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am thankful for the Minister's remarks. To clear up one legal point that she raised, I beg to differ with her on the Carltona decision and the reference in the relevant clause to civil servants. I do not believe that "persons" here refers to individual civil servants. It is a reference to the persons referred to in Clauses 19 to 22, which are authorities, not civil servants. But let us leave that little joust aside and get to the nub of the matter, which is that the Minister is sympathetic to but unmoved by my desire to have this made plain in the Bill. I cannot at this stage do more than withdraw the amendment, but I shall speak to the Minister between stages, because I am terrier-like in my wish to make the Bill more sympathetic to the layman. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendments Nos. 73 and 74:
	Page 21, line 6, leave out "by the prescribed person in the prescribed manner" and insert "in the prescribed manner by the person specified in or determined under the regulations"
	Page 21, line 17, at end insert—
	"( ) A power of the Secretary of State under any of sections 19 to 22 to provide information about an individual to another person is exercisable only where the provision of the information is subject to the satisfaction in relation to that other person of conditions imposed under subsection (4)(a)."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 74A:
	Page 21, line 17, at end insert—
	"( ) The Secretary of State must not process sensitive personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998 (c. 29) in connection with an individual's entry in the Register without the consent of that individual."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the amendment seeks clarification from the Minister on an issue that I first raised in Committee on 16 November, in cols. 1175–77; it was rather a long debate, as noble Lords can tell from the column references. I was concerned that an amendment made on Report in another place may have had unintended consequences and might allow sensitive personal data to be added to the national identity register.
	Clause 1(6) was added by the Government without debate, because the guillotine prevented it. It was added in good faith by the Government to meet objections that had been raised in another place by the Minister's honourable friends. Their concern and that of Members throughout the House was that the drafting of Clause 1 meant that the database could contain sensitive personal data. The main concern had been that medical and criminal records could be added to the national identity register.
	After Committee, the Minister wrote to me to explain why the Government believed that their drafting of subsection (6) remains benign. But she admitted in that letter that there cannot be a complete exclusion of information tending to reveal sensitive personal data from the registrable facts at Clause 1(5) because a photograph or nationality may of itself tend to reveal such data as racial ethnic origin, which is covered by the Data Protection Act 1998. But she argued that that is information that everybody would expect to be on a register. That sounds like common sense, but she will understand that I remain a little uneasy about the position on sensitive data and, like the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, I believe that this Bill changes the relationship between state and citizen so much that it is the duty of all of us to ensure that we get it as right as possible for the citizen.
	The reason why I brought back this amendment, for clarification only, is that I believe that it will be consistent with the position that the Government have taken in the Minister's letter. It would simply ensure that the Secretary of State could not process sensitive personal data that were covered by Section 29 of the Data Protection Act 1998. Will the Minister give me a clear assurance that that is the position that the Government intend to adopt in the setting up and running of the national identity register? I hope that she will explain why she feels that it would not be better to have this in the Bill. I know that she will attempt to do so; let us see if she manages to persuade me. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I shall be very happy to seek to do so. The noble Baroness is right to refer to the content of the letter and the reasons we have set out. It is important just to run through what "sensitive data" means, because it emphasises why a photograph could arguably be sensitive data. I say "arguably" because people tend to fall on both sides of the argument. Some say that it is not sensitive data—it is just a photograph; whereas others say that it is sensitive data. That is what causes us the difficulty.
	Some noble Lords may not be familiar with the definition of "sensitive data", so I shall remind the House what it is. It is the racial or ethnic origin of the data subject; his political opinions; his religious beliefs; whether he is a member of a trade union; his physical or mental health; his sexual life; the commission or alleged commission by him of any offence; any proceedings for any offence committed or alleged to be committed by him, and the disposal of such proceedings or the sentence of any court.
	It is clear to those noble Lords who are now familiar with Schedule 1 to the Bill that the register will not contain substantive information falling within any of those categories. Moreover, any addition to the list of information in Schedule 1 would have to be consistent with the statutory purposes, which in effect rules out any possibility of adding, for example, medical or criminal records. However, as I have indicated, it is arguable that information that is in itself innocuous is in fact sensitive personal data within the DPA definition. For example, a photograph may reveal someone's racial origin or indicate a particular disability or religion, perhaps because they are wearing a capel, a turban or something of that sort.
	So one sees why the debate over photographs comes about. I am sure the noble Baroness is not seeking to prevent the provision of photographic information from the register without consent; for example, to the police under Clause 19(3)(b) for the detection of a crime, and that could quite possibly be the effect of Amendment No. 74A. For the reasons I have given, I hope she will feel comfortable about withdrawing it. I understand perfectly why, in the normal way, the issues that would fall within "sensitive data" would be excluded. If there were not an argument about the photograph, I would have been happy with the amendment, but there is. There will be those who say the photograph clearly identifies a number of those issues, and that is our problem.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. As I explained, this was for clarification. Most people who have not been involved with every line and word of this Bill would have thought a photograph could not bring offence by bearing sensitive personal data, but people have written to me who are concerned that a photograph, as the Minister has just said, could reveal their religion, which might mean they would be discriminated against in certain circumstances. I entirely understand what she says with regard to why photographs must be included in this—an identity card would not function effectively were they not. I appreciate that there is a crossover with the Data Protection Act, and there have been some complications as a result. I am grateful to her for making further clarification on the record, and I would not return to this on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 75:
	Page 21, line 19, leave out "authorised" and insert "that he is authorised to make"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Northesk: moved Amendment No. 76:
	After Clause 23, insert the following new clause—
	"FUNCTIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE IN RESPECT OF DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
	(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 11 and 19 to 23, the Secretary of State has the following specific functions in respect of the disclosure of information—
	(a) to draw up and disseminate to the persons and bodies to whom sections 11 and 19 to 23 apply, guidance as to the disclosure of information between and amongst themselves in a proportionate and necessary way;
	(b) to draw up and disseminate to the persons and bodies to whom sections 11 and 19 to 23 apply, guidance as to the circumstances in which it is appropriate for those persons and bodies to disclose information between and amongst themselves in a proportionate and necessary way;
	(c) to maintain under review the guidance set out in paragraphs (a) and (b).
	(2) In drawing up the guidance set out in subsection (1)(a) and (b), and in reviewing such guidance under subsection (1)(c), the Secretary of State shall consult—
	(a) the National Identity Scheme Commissioner;
	(b) the Information Commissioner;
	(c) such other interested persons and bodies as the National Identity Scheme Commissioner sees fit.
	(3) The guidance under subsection (1)(a) and (b) shall in particular make provision as to—
	(a) the nature of the information that must or may be disclosed;
	(b) procedures designed to ensure the proportionality and necessity of the process of information disclosure;
	(c) procedures designed to ensure the accuracy and security of information disclosed;
	(d) procedures designed to ensure, where appropriate, the co-ordination of the disclosure of information between and amongst relevant agencies and persons in a proportionate and necessary way;
	(e) procedures designed to guarantee, as appropriate, the rights of data subjects in respect of any information about them that may be disclosed;
	(f) procedures designed to govern the period for which it is appropriate that information should be disclosed and to ensure appropriate deletion of any information disclosed in compliance with the data protection principles.
	(4) This section applies to the persons and bodies identified in sections 11 and 19 to 23 and, as appropriate, any agencies, companies or individuals who may be contracted to work for them or to supply goods and services to them.
	(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations subject to affirmative resolution in each House of Parliament proscribe and penalise contravention of any guidance under this section as to collection, sharing, use, holding and disclosure of information."

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, as your Lordships will be aware, we debated this somewhat late in the day in Committee. I hope, therefore, that I may be forgiven for returning to the issue today, although happily I need not weary the House with a detailed explanation of its purpose, which is straightforward: namely, to propose that the Secretary of State draw up statutory guidelines in respect of the information disclosure provisions of the Bill, with the intention that these be enforceable in law. I have been consistent in my pessimism about the Government accepting the amendment, on the basis—and here I echo an earlier comment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips—that it will be argued it is unnecessary because the Human Rights Act and the Data Protection Act will apply to this legislation in any event. The Minister made that case in Committee. Indeed, when I sought to amend the Children Act 2004 in a similar way, my efforts were rebuffed for the same reason, although it is perhaps worth noting that at that time the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, replying for the Government, made the point:
	"We are clear that comprehensive statutory guidance is needed".—[Official Report, 15/7/04; col. 1431.]
	That was buttressed in the 19th report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which observed:
	"We welcome the Government's acceptance of the need for comprehensive statutory guidance on information sharing, in response to an amendment proposed by"
	myself, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. It may be somewhat presumptuous of me, but I infer from that that at least some elements of the legislative process have sympathy with my purpose here.
	That aside, revelations in respect of a number of related matters over the past few weeks have reinforced my conviction that some form of additional protection for the public in this area is essential. First, your Lordships will of course have noted the recent disclosure that some 24,000 young people aged between 10 and 18 are having their DNA profiles routinely stored, despite the fact that they have never been charged or cautioned for an offence. That is a matter that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, raised in a Starred Question last week. The structure of the Bill, as I have repeatedly argued, allows a great deal of cross-pollination between the national identity register and other government databases. It is entirely possible that the ID card scheme could in the future be used to cross-reference DNA data. Evidently, that flies in the face of the assertions that the Minister made on the point throughout our scrutiny of the Bill.
	We all understand that there are legitimate, perhaps even virtuous, arguments in favour of the utility of databases storing DNA profiles. However, it is essential that their establishment should not happen, as it were, by stealth, but should be subject to open and transparent parliamentary debate. Certainly this matter would seem to argue in favour of the new clause, the more so given that there have been indications that the Home Office may be in the process of reviewing its retention and deletion policy in this area.
	Secondly, your Lordships will also have noted the front-page story in a recent copy of the Times  revealing that three chief constables have won a landmark appeal to the Information Tribunal against the Information Commissioner. As a result, from April this year, records of all criminal convictions and cautions, however minor, will remain on file pretty much indefinitely. Again, we can all accept and recognise the efficacy of using such data within databases for the prevention and detection of criminal and even terrorist activity. Nevertheless, as a non-lawyer, I cannot square the circle retaining data— albeit "available to police eyes only"—for 100 or so years and the fifth data protection principle, which states:
	"personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes".
	There is also the announcement from the Home Office Minister, Andy Burnham, that ID cards will,
	"incorporate a 'contactless' or 'proximity' chip",
	reliant on RFID—radio frequency identification. The fact is that this technology can be and is used to track the location and movement of items in which it is embedded. ID cards would effectively come with a built-in facility permitting knowledge of the whereabouts of the holder for every second of every day. That is an especially pertinent issue regarding the security of the scheme. All those developments persuade me that, however persuasive the Minister may be in arguing the case, the comfort and security afforded by the Data Protection Act are far from adequate.
	In Committee, the Minister suggested that an argument against the new clause is that,
	"what is lawful for [recipients of information] to do with it will depend on each recipient's own common law and statutory powers".—[Official Report, 14/12/05; col. 1355.]
	In other words, it will be difficult to codify the Bill's disclosure of information provisions because they stretch across such a wide variety of agencies. To my way of thinking, that makes it all the more necessary to do so. It is precisely because current arrangements for disclosure are such a mishmash that guidelines, statutorily based and enforceable in law, are unnecessary. Such a codification should reflect the different approaches adopted by different agencies, thereby creating greater transparency of the regime. Merely because such a task might be difficult should not in any way militate against it being done.
	In fact, the new clause buttresses a central recommendation of Sir Michael Bichard's inquiry into the Soham murders. Recommendation 8 of the report states that, in respect of police IT systems:
	"A Code of Practice should be produced",
	which, in the words of Recommendation 9,
	"must clearly set out the key principles of good information management (capture, review, retention, deletion and sharing), having regard to policing purposes, the rights of the individual and the law".
	The Home Office's progress report of last month identifies that the full set of guidance recommended by Sir Michael Bichard was available as of October last year. To that extent, the new clause—in so far as it applies to Clauses 19 and 20—is entirely consistent with the policy imperatives being pursued by the Home Office. Indeed, while it is idle to speculate, it is conceivable that much of the recent controversy about List 99 and the sex offender register might have been avoided had the new clause, or something like it, already been properly implemented. Dare I say it, but, viewed from this perspective, the Government should be minded to approach the amendment with a healthy measure of sympathy.
	I add a few thoughts about this, in part reflecting some of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, last week. The Home Office has announced, almost with pride, that 7 per cent of the UK population will have their DNA profiles stored in two years' time, thereby reinforcing the UK's position as the world leader in the practice. For example, this compares with the EU average of 1.13 per cent and 0.5 per cent in the United States.
	Some 20 per cent of the CCTV cameras deployed in the world are to be found in the UK. Under the current Administration, the UK population has become subject to greater state surveillance than almost anywhere else in the world. This necessarily begs the question of whether the rights and protections of our citizens in this area have kept pace with what some might be tempted to call the Government's infatuation with snooping. There are legitimate reasons for supposing that the powers of the Information Commissioner and associated legislation such as the Data Protection Act 1998 are proving ever more inadequate, as perhaps exemplified by the decision of the Information Tribunal to which I referred earlier.
	By the same token, it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves that the Information Commissioner has had just cause in the past to bemoan an absence of appropriate enforcement powers. The new clause is therefore intended to offer some redress in this area.
	In conclusion, I repeat my assertion that the new clause or something like it is necessary to act as belt and braces to the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Data Protection Act 1998, and to give both the national identity scheme and information commissioners adequately sharp teeth. As my noble friend Lord Crickhowell pointed out in Committee, it would go a long way towards mitigating many of the anxieties that many of us have about the Bill. I beg to move.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I support this amendment; if I had been a bit more organised, I would have added my name to it. As I have stated before, we need greater protections in this Bill to ensure that the "Big Brother" culture does not get out of control.
	I have sat in on many debates on government data-sharing in various organisations to which I belong at which people from various government departments have been present. It is clear that no one is exactly sure what is allowed and what is not. There are also a lot of data-sharing initiatives which I am not sure would, strictly speaking, be permitted under the Bill.
	Oversight of all this data sharing by the office of the Information Commissioner is essential. We know, however, that that office is underfunded and overloaded—particularly since the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It is clear that many government departments do not know when they should be referring to the Information Commissioner. By embodying that in the Bill, we will make it much clearer to government departments what they should be doing, who they should be consulting and how.
	I was thinking of trying to introduce a privacy impact assessment clause into this Bill. When I read the amendment, however, I decided that this was probably a much better way of going about it, which is why I support it. The old argument that we should not worry because we have got the ECHR and all the human rights bodies out there holds no water. How are you to get a case together? Who is going to bring it? How does a citizen do that? It is unworkable; people feel powerless.
	For example, there is a lot of talk about the fact that local authority valuation officers will be allowed to come into your home and photograph the interior, which has all sorts of privacy and security implications. A lot of people are very concerned about that. They would like to take it to the European Court of Human Rights. My attitude has been to wonder where is the legislation that permits this. They have been clearly told that this is going to happen.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I hate to interrupt the noble Lord, but I made it plain in answering a recent Question in your Lordships' House that the proposition which the noble Lord sets out is complete nonsense. Photographs are only ever taken by valuation officers with the express authority of the occupier.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reassurance. I hope that someone out there reads it and publishes it in the press, for there are still many concerned citizens who believe that the previous story is correct and are wondering what they can do about it. That feeling of powerlessness among the people is significant, and I am glad to have had that proposition knocked on the head.
	However, the feeling about ID cards will be the same, which is why I used that example. I was pretty certain that it could not be done, but most of the public out there were not and did not know how to find out. A provision such as this is essential so that the public know that they are protected and know where to go to find out whether the protection is working. That is why I heartily support the amendment.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, on the question of protecting the public, one should be seriously worried about the desire of the Government to stick their beaks into absolutely everyone's business, for no reason other than idle curiosity. Together with that we have a series of crashingly incompetent computer systems. A report in the Times today says that the whole tax benefit computer system is simply not working. We have had reports that the Inland Revenue computer does not work and that the computers holding the records of National Health Service doctors do not work.
	Not only do we have a nosy Government, but one who insist on putting everything on computer and are then incapable of making those computer systems work—except at three times the cost which was originally budgeted. Even then, they are probably still not making them work. It is very depressing. The noble Baroness may laugh and smile gently at a description that might be mildly hyperbolic, but it is exactly what people out there think. There is too great a track record for it to be laughed off as crying wolf.

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, one thing I know about my noble friend Lord Northesk is that he has, over many years, been thorough in the extreme. He probably does more research on the issue than the entire Home Office put together. However, that said, I sometimes find it quite difficult to understand exactly what he is saying—and that proves to me how extraordinarily complex the issue is.
	I suggested in one debate last week that we should look at the German legislation on data protection, which made it absolutely impossible for any government department to share data with anyone else, or for the butcher to pass on the names of customers. While sitting with a glass of wine or two and talking to my friends around the world over the weekend, for a bit of fun I tried to access the 22 countries who are members of the EEA—those whose people are effectively allowed to travel at present into this country with an identity card. I sought to see whether I could harmonise the data on that identity card, and which countries had legislation which would mean approving the sort of legislation which we are introducing today. I had these sorts of comments, some from politicians and some from others; "You cannot be serious!"—that was one—or, "You cannot be doing such a thing in a country with greater liberty than anyone else". There must be some form of protection.
	This morning, I had a sudden knock on my door to ask whether I would support a CCTV camera in the lane. There were several others with new houses who wanted them and they were asking me—because they had heard that I occasionally came to this place—whether I could tell them what the law was in relation to the data. The discussion—with some of a Lebanese nationality, or British; I use the word "nationality" guardedly—went that they were worried about doing the wrong thing if they put up a CCTV camera to record information. Some cameras can record for nine months on a single disc, and we discussed who that information belonged to. Would the state have access to it, or would they? Where was the intellectual property?
	Going over that in time, I concluded that we are either a bright spark leading a light in the wilderness, and doing the right thing, or—as I tend to believe—we are doing totally the wrong thing. I therefore support my noble friend and hope that he will press this amendment.

The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, I seek clarification on the relationship between identity cards and various government departments. On the "Today" programme on 25 January, the Home Secretary said:
	"We have a process where we begin voluntarily linking it to the passport and possibly CRB check in the event of a decision by Parliament".
	If this goes forward and we talk about voluntary linking to passport and CRB records, has any thought been given to the impact that that will have upon volunteers? It would appear that in order to get CRB clearance, volunteers in any organisation would have to purchase their own ID card before they can volunteer for whatever they wish to do. In the interests of encouraging volunteering, that is surely not the way we would wish to go.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, has tabled a practical amendment that gets to the heart of the principal area of concern about the Bill as a whole, which is how, and under what circumstances, sensitive information can be disclosed. As the noble Earl said in moving the amendment, given that we have a mishmash of provisions in the Bill—that is no one's fault but just a function of a highly complex piece of legislation—there is every reason why the Secretary of State should have the practical task of pulling it all together and putting out guidance. Guidance is guidance; it is not law. However, it would be extremely helpful to those who will have to work this huge, complex bundle of rights and obligations and to those citizens whose information is collected and disclosed. I should have thought that that is totally with the flow of what the Government have been saying all along and the messages and the policy assurances that the Minister has regularly given. I do not see that this amendment does anything but support—in a sense, buttress—all that. It will provide a single place in which civil servants, the public and public authorities can see set out comprehensively what disclosure means and the reasonable limits that should surround it. I hope that this amendment will appeal to the Government.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Northesk rightly said that I gave strong support to him on this issue when we last debated it. I take this opportunity to say that my feelings are exactly the same today. Indeed, the more I hear of the complexities that have been described to the House by, for example, my noble friend Lord Selsdon, the more certain I am that we need the clearest possible guidance to be given comprehensively in a way that will give comfort, reassurance and understanding to the citizen. Our prime interest in all this should be the protection of the citizen and his rights, which is a subject that I shall come back to on later amendments.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, on tabling this amendment. I should have thought that the Government would consider it to be very helpful. We have heard a good deal about the surveillance society. It is very much with us, and will be with us a lot more when the Bill, and other Bills to come, are passed. I feel quite sure that when Orwell wrote 1984, he did not envisage that this country would be the sort of country he wrote about. He would have been quite horrified if he had realised that eventually we were going to have a compulsory register and compulsory identification cards for every citizen in our land. I believe that he did not think that that could possibly apply in Britain. But, of course, here it is—and it is applying.
	The Minister has told us very often that the proposals in the Bill have the overwhelming support of the British public. I do not believe that is true. It may be that a focus group has come up with 72 per cent in favour, but I can assure her that the conversation on the buses—I do not know whether she ever goes on the buses—and my postbag tell me that there is a large opposition to this measure. The more people know about it and the more people begin to understand what is at stake, the less they like it. Indeed, Swindon Borough Council, I am glad to say, passed a resolution last week against the imposition of identity cards and an identity register.
	There is much that should concern us about the Bill. The good thing about this amendment is that it will at least give some reassurance to those people who are concerned that their individual liberty and their individual circumstances could be affected by the Bill, particularly when the register and the ID cards become compulsory.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I support my noble friend's important amendment, which gives practical clarity to the provisions governing the disclosure of information. He has done so against a background of reminding us of some of the concerns that there are currently in this country about the way in which information may or may not be disclosed. Where it is right for information to be disclosed, we are all concerned to ensure that, for example, children in vulnerable situations are protected. But there is some confusion on these matters.
	I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for asking the question that he did. I know it gently drifted away from the amendment but I hope the Minister will be able to respond to it. I listened to the same radio broadcast as the right reverend Prelate and it struck me then that the Home Secretary was taking a rather different stance from that which is being presented to us here. In front of us we have a Bill which is intended to link from the word go the passport to ID—initially compulsorily—when you apply for a new document. I tabled amendments at the Committee stage which probed the issue of how soon the driving licence would come in as the designated document.
	But this is the first time that the Home Secretary has mentioned in one breath the passport and in the next breath the Criminal Records Bureau, forgetting all the rest. That is a cause for concern and I understand exactly why the right reverend Prelate mentioned that against the background of the importance of volunteering. So, although he was drifting away from the amendment, it was an important point to make.
	My noble friend has argued his case with devastating logic and it would not be right for me to go over the arguments again in detail. As my noble friend said, it is important to have something which acts as a belt and braces for the Human Rights Act and the Data Protection Act and gives the National Identity Scheme Commissioner and the Information Commissioner sharper teeth. The amendment does so in a very sensible way.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have listened with great care and interest to all the comments that have been made. I think it is wonderful when one has four Earls speaking to one amendment. I commend them for that if nothing else.
	If one looks at the matters that have been spoken to in relation to the amendment, one finds that two issues have been conflated, so let me separate them out. The first issue concerns DNA, and the other concerns the use to which it should be put in relation to ID cards. I hope that I have made it clear throughout our debate that DNA is not included in Schedule 1 and therefore cannot be stored on the register. Nor are there powers to take DNA samples.
	To put the matter entirely beyond doubt, I am happy to tell your Lordships that the Government intend to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading to limit the registrable facts under Clause 1 to external characteristics, which is something that we debated long and hard when the matter was raised—by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, in particular—in relation to how to differentiate between internal and external characteristics. The issue of a future government was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk—I am constantly being told that I am very benign—as a way to undermine my argument. A future government would be prevented from adding DNA to the information that might be added to Schedule 1 by affirmative order. I hope that we can put the debate on DNA to bed. It will not be part of this Bill.
	I can tell the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, that it is not right to suggest that the provisions in the 2001 and 2003 Acts have been unmerited in any way. I hope that the noble Earl was present when I said that more than 3,000 cases have been identified as a result of that material, including rapes and murders. One that stands out in my mind is a 20 year-old offence of the rape and murder of a 14 year-old girl, which was discovered as a result of a minor offence being committed some 20 years later. We are not saying that DNA has not some significance, but DNA and ID cards should be separated.
	Before continuing, I should mention the suggestion that the Secretary of State should issue the guidance. I confess to being a little surprised, given the trenchant criticisms of the Home Office during our debates on the Bill, that noble Lords would want my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, or his successors in title, to be responsible for guidance on information sharing to all public authorities. That is surely the function of the independent Information Commissioner and should be properly dealt with in that way.
	On the issue of contactless ID cards raised by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, I should make it clear that it is currently planned that an ID card will be valid for travel within the EEA. As a result it must comply with the standards established by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. Thus, all countries are considering this very same matter. Standards stipulate that a travel document, such as an ID card, will have to have a contactless or proximity chip. It will require the card to use radio frequencies to allow the card to be read at very short distances of approximately 0 to 2 cm from the reader. That is somewhat similar to the Oyster card used on London transport. To prevent the information on such chips being read at a greater distance, the card will implement basic access control, which requires that the machine readable zone—the MRZ—printed on the face of the card is scanned and the information then used to unlock the read and request data from the chip.
	As with e-passports, which the UK Passport Service is beginning to issue from this year, an attempt to read the chip without using the information printed on the MRZ to unlock it will yield no data that can be used to identify an individual. The worry of the noble Earls, Lord Erroll and Lord Northesk, is not merited. The conspiracy theory that the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, seems to be promulgating about the style of tracking will not occur.
	As for CCTV cameras, I very much take on board the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon. It amplifies how many of the public want to have better protection and want the facility of CCTV cameras. Indeed, we know that they are extremely useful in the detection of crime, not only in relation to terrorists but in identifying recent criminal offenders. None of that bites on this.The noble Earl's amendment would require the Secretary of State to draw up and disseminate guidance to recipients of information from the register relating to disclosure of that information between and among them.
	The noble Earl stressed the importance of data protection and we do not disagree with him. However, the amendment, notwithstanding the fact that it is supported by a number of noble Lords, is misguided. It seeks to give the Secretary of State a role which is more appropriately fulfilled by others, as I have already indicated. Guidance on onward disclosure would necessarily relate predominantly to the legal position. The extent to which, and the circumstances in which, onward disclosure of information by a person who would have received it under these clauses would be lawful would depend on the statutory or common law powers of that particular person and the application of various restrictions from the Human Rights Act through the Data Protection Act to common law duties of confidence. The noble Earl was right to remind your Lordships that I made those points when we last discussed this.
	The police have powers which are different from those of the security agencies, which are in turn different from those of government departments. Recipients of information from the register will no doubt take advice from their respective legal advisers on disclosure of information, wherever that information is derived from. It is not appropriate for the Secretary of State, in exercising his functions under the Bill, to be under an obligation to provide what would amount to detailed and tailor-made legal advice to a wide variety of people, all of whom are already getting that advice from its proper source.
	Subsection (3) of the amendment provides that the guidance produced by the Secretary of State would in particular have to deal with matters such as the security of information and the period of retention. Those are exactly the kind of matters which are governed by the Data Protection Act. In so far as the noble Earl is proposing that guidance should be given in complying with the obligations which derive from the Act, I gently remind him of the primary duties of the Information Commissioner, which are set out in Section 51 of that Act. The first two subsections provide:
	"(1) It shall be the duty of the Commissioner to promote the following of good practice by data controllers and, in particular, so to perform his functions under this Act as to promote the observance of the requirements of this Act by data controllers.
	(2) The Commissioner shall arrange for the dissemination in such form and manner as he considers appropriate of such information as it may appear to him expedient to give to the public about the operation of this Act, about good practice, and about other matters within the scope of his functions under this Act, and may give advice to any person as to any of those matters".
	Those are the commissioner's proper functions.
	I take this opportunity to remind the House of some of the safeguards for which the Bill makes provision in relation to those to whom information may be provided from the register. Clause 24(2) requires the National Identity Scheme Commissioner to keep under review the arrangements made by those who can be provided with information from the register for obtaining, recording and using the information. Furthermore, as a result of government amendments, accreditation for organisations provided with information under Clauses 19 to 22, which are not specified in the Bill, will be compulsory. Finally, under Clause 26(2), the Intelligence Services Commissioner is empowered to keep under review the acquisition, storage and use by the intelligence services of information recorded in the national identity register as well as the provision of that information to any member of those services.
	I hope that I have been able to persuade the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, and other noble Earls who have spoken, together with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, that to include this further obligation on my right honourable friend or his successors in title is not necessary. Advice on the circumstances in which disclosure would be lawful is that it really is not an appropriate matter for the Secretary of State. It would be tailor-made to each recipient, having regard to the statutory and common law regime surrounding the recipient.
	It is quite clear that it is better for the commissioners to do this job—they are better placed to do it independently and thoroughly, with the appropriate rigour and vigour—than it would be to ask my right honourable friend the Home Secretary simply to duplicate all that work. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, not least for the level of support that the amendment inspired. As others indicated and I sought to demonstrate in my introduction, my aim here has always been to offer assistance to the Government. I was particularly struck by the comments made by my noble friends Lady Anelay and Lord Crickhowell. They both correctly identified the utility of giving the public—those on whom the ID cards scheme will primarily impact—clear, concise and transparent information about their data. That can only engender better and greater acceptance of the scheme.
	I hear, accept and understand the Minister's comments on DNA. In my introduction, I was content to reflect on the usefulness of it in the detection and prevention of crime. I will not be tempted down the route of explaining why virtually it is possible that the register may have access to DNA—that would become too complicated and it would bore your Lordships to tears.
	With regard to RFID, I merely point out that the chips in biometric passports in Holland have already been forensically hacked from a distance much greater than a few centimetres and decrypted within a matter of hours. In other words, that technology is insecure and raises severe data protection issues. With regard to the Secretary of State's role, interestingly, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, used the reverse argument when we were debating the Children Act. She maintained that the Secretary of State should have responsibility in this area. I suggest that the Government cannot have it both ways depending on which legislation is under consideration. Because my intent with the amendment was to assist the Government, more in weariness than anything else, I should test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 76) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 155; Not-Contents, 155.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there have voted: Contents, 155; Not-Contents, 155. There being an equality of votes, in accordance with Standing Order 57, which provides that no proposal to amend a Bill in the form of which it is before the House shall be agreed to unless there is a majority in favour of such amendment, I declare the amendment disagreed to.

Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Clause 24 [Appointment of National Identity Scheme Commissioner]:

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: moved Amendment No. 76A:
	Page 21, line 24, leave out "Secretary of State must" and insert "crown must, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State,"

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, after that excitement, I beg to move this short amendment, which would make the Information Commissioner appointable by the Crown on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, rather than by the Secretary of State alone. In Committee, we discussed a number of amendments designed to give more independence to the commissioner in carrying on his or her work. Most of that work will be with regard to public authorities.
	Indeed, in moving the amendment, I could do no better than to take over wholesale the arguments advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, for resisting the previous amendment. Noble Lords may remember that the proposal of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, was for the Secretary of State to have responsibility for issuing guidance and so on. The noble Baroness said that that was monstrous, completely improper and unsuitable. She said that the commissioner should have those powers because much of the work is to be done by departments of government and therefore it would surely be more appropriate for the commissioner to have the powers. I say, "Hear, hear". That is right in every particular, and apparently your Lordships agreed with the noble Baroness because they failed to approve the amendment.
	The powers under the Bill relating to the commissioner are absolutely critical. It is plain—is it not?—that there is a great deal of anxiety in this place and in the country about the prospects of disclosure of information not following the lawful courses provided for by the Bill, leading to inadvertent disclosure of highly sensitive information. Indeed, it is fair to say that there is a great deal of anxiety about the Bill in all its aspects. While it is our duty to make the best of it, I believe that this modest amendment will give the commissioner a little more distance in terms of his or her relationship with the Secretary of State.
	We have tabled a later amendment, which would require the commissioner to report to Parliament rather than to Parliament through the Secretary of State. I hope that, when we reach it, the amendment will be accepted or voted upon affirmatively. But, for the time being, Amendment No. 76A deals with the appointment of the commissioner. It is just worth mentioning that Clause 24(2)(a) describes the function of the commissioner as keeping under review,
	"the arrangements for the time being maintained by the Secretary of State for the purposes of his functions under this Act".
	There is a great deal more of that type of obligation. As I said, it is another vivid example of how the relationship between the commissioner and the Secretary of State is apt to be extremely sensitive and important, and therefore it must be desirable to provide a little more distance and independence in relation to the appointment of the commissioner. With those few words, I beg to move.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, in the later group to which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, referred I will be saying rather more about the important issue of independence and the need to have a strong and robust commissioner who, if necessary, can stand up to the pressures that may be placed on him. I must confess that I cannot recall whether, when I became chairman of the National Rivers Authority, I was appointed by the Crown, the Minister of Agriculture or the Secretary of State for the Environment. Certainly I was answerable to the last two but I think that my authority succeeded in being robustly independent.
	I will have something to say on the later group, but now I will simply say that I believe that the principle being addressed in the amendment—that the commissioner must be the strong protector of the citizen; again, I go back to using the word "citizen"—is so important that anything we can do to support and strengthen it should be backed by the House.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, I strongly support the principle, which has just been elegantly announced.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I add my support to this amendment, moved with such commendable brevity. I think the important point is that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is proposing a method by which the authority of the Secretary of State would not be compromised, but the position and independence of the commissioner would be enhanced. As my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, that is exactly what we are trying to achieve as well as ensuring that there is a champion for the citizen throughout this procedure—somebody who will be able to stand up to the Secretary of State. The Minister may, I think as a result of some murmuring I heard from him a moment ago, be about to ask whether it really matters, because people will not particularly understand the difference. I see the Minister shaking his head; I am glad that he is not going to take that tack. The importance will be seen by Parliament and by the person appointed as commissioner. If they are appointed by the Crown, it gives them that "stand back" position, that extra position of authority and impartiality, which would be welcome.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and other noble Lords have very adequately set out what they seek to achieve. Noble Lords will be aware that there are a variety of different statutory commissioners, some appointed by Her Majesty, some by the Prime Minister and some by the Secretary of State. Among the commissioners appointed by Her Majesty, there are those, including Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary and Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons, who nevertheless report to the Secretary of State. There is then the example of the Information Commissioner, who is appointed by Her Majesty by Letters Patent, who is a corporation sole, and who reports directly to Parliament.
	We take the view that it is appropriate for the National Identity Scheme Commissioner to be appointed by the Secretary of State. I accept the point that the commissioner might be seen as more independent if he were a Crown appointment, but I am not aware that, for instance, the Immigration Services Commissioner is regarded as biased because he is appointed by the Secretary of State, nor that the Intelligence Services Commissioner is compromised for being appointed by the Prime Minister.
	To a degree—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, will accept this point—this is a presentational issue more than anything else. There are no differences in terms of powers and there is little that can be achieved by the amendment, as the noble Lord himself put it. All it would achieve is the perception of a little more distance. The noble Lord is not, I think, advocating complete independence, such as the Information Commissioner has. The Information Commissioner has the power to serve enforcement and information notices on data controllers, Secretary of State data controllers included. He also has the power to bring prosecutions. Total independence is therefore entirely appropriate in such a case. The National Identity Scheme Commissioner, by contrast, has a rather different role—that of reviewing and reporting—so that both the Secretary of State and Parliament benefit from his overseeing the scheme.
	I am unconvinced that a case has been made for the National Identity Scheme Commissioner to be appointed by the Crown on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, as opposed to being simply appointed by the Secretary of State. I can reassure the noble Lords that the appointment of the National Identity Scheme Commissioner will follow the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments rules and, importantly, its code of practice, as well as Home Office guidance on public appointments by Ministers. I understand the desire for robust independence. We think that the legislation, as it is set out, achieves exactly that, so I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Ackner: My Lords, the Minister accepted that this might relate to perception. Is it not the Government's view that that can be vital—hence the decision to move the entirety of the Lords of Appeal out of this House?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is a neat point. However, as I said in addressing the issue precisely when considering the point on commissioners, it would be commonly assumed that the Immigration Services Commissioner and the Intelligence Services Commissioner, as well as other commissioners who are appointed in the same or a similar way to the National Identity Scheme Commissioner do not have their independence compromised. One could fairly argue that they are more than prepared to take a robust and independent line.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I am also grateful for that Exocet from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, which was more than a neat point. I thought that it went to the heart of the debate—and, indeed, the Minister hung his hat on mere perception. Perception is important, and it is important here. The Minister talked about the Intelligence Services Commissioner and said that he is appointed by the Prime Minister. I might accept the Prime Minister as an alternative to the Secretary of State. What I am worried about is that the commissioner will have more to do with the Secretary of State and the overseeing of the Secretary of State's stewardship of the whole scheme than anyone else. Therefore, this is an issue on which it is worth testing the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 76A) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 155; Not-Contents, 138.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 77:
	Page 21, line 37, at end insert—
	( ) Where the Commissioner reviews any arrangements in accordance with subsection (2), his review must include, in particular, a review of the extent to which the arrangements make appropriate provision—
	(a) for securing the confidentiality and integrity of information recorded in the Register; and
	(b) for dealing with complaints made to the Secretary of State or a designated documents authority about the carrying out of the functions mentioned in that subsection."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 77, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83 and 84. Amendment No. 77 clarifies that the National Identity Scheme Commissioner's jurisdiction includes keeping under review the arrangements for securing the confidentiality and integrity of information on the register as well as the arrangements for handling complaints. I listened very carefully to the concerns raised by noble Lords in Committee and I hope that this amendment goes some way towards addressing those concerns.
	Noble Lords were particularly concerned about complaints handling. As the amendment clarifies, the commissioner will have oversight of the complaints handling procedures and, no doubt, will include in his report any concerns that he or she might have about the way in which the agency is handling any complaints that it receives.
	As I said in Committee, nothing in the Bill would prevent the commissioner taking an interest in or making further inquiries about a specific complaint. What I do not think would be appropriate, however, is to give the commissioner a formal role in the investigation of complaints in general. Complaints handling will be a routine function that the new agency will need to fulfil, and I do not think it sensible for the commissioner to be responsible for dealing with every single complaint, however trivial. It would substantially change the nature of his role, which is, in essence, one of keeping the scheme, as a whole, under review.
	Amendment No. 77 will also require the commissioner to keep under review the arrangements for securing the confidentiality and integrity of information recorded in the register. As I have made clear, I was most attentive to the concerns raised by noble Lords in Committee, in particular those about the security and integrity of the information held on the register. It is clear from this amendment that the commissioner must have regard to that and will report on it.
	However, we do not accept that the commissioner should have a formal role in requests for data correction from individuals. As I have made clear, the operation of the register will need to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998. The duties of the Secretary of State as a data controller, the rights of the individual as a data subject and the powers of the Information Commissioner will all apply to the national identity register as they do to other databases. Where a person feels his data are being unfairly processed—for example, because they are inaccurate—he could approach the Information Commissioner, who has a power to impose enforcement notices on data controllers. There is also a right under the Data Protection Act 1998 to apply to the courts for rectification.
	Amendments Nos. 78 to 82 seek to modify government Amendment No. 77. These are essentially unnecessary drafting amendments; they would have no substantive effect on the remit of the commissioner.
	We discussed at length in Committee the question of whether "arrangements for using", under Clause 24(2)(c), would in this context include "uses". As I said then—and I stand by that view—it would. Therefore, Amendment No. 78, which adds the word "uses" into the government amendment clarifying the scope of Clause 24(2), is particularly inappropriate, as the word "uses"—as opposed to "arrangements for using"—does not appear in the subsection which is being clarified.
	Amendment No. 83 seeks to add to the powers of the National Identity Scheme Commissioner by allocating him a formal role in the investigation of individual complaints and in dealing with data corrections. I outlined in our discussion on Amendment No. 77 the reasons why that would not be appropriate. I therefore do not intend to repeat those comments now. Suffice it to say that the commissioner should scrutinise the agency's own complaints handling procedures and report on those as he or she sees fit. Staff of the agency will be under a duty to co-operate with the commissioner and provide information to him by virtue of Clause 24(4). If the commissioner is not satisfied with the handling of complaints in general, or a complaint in particular, he can raise it with the Secretary of State and refer to it in his reports under Clause 25, all of which will be laid before Parliament.
	Amendment No. 83 also seeks to give the commissioner a role in data correction in individual cases. I have already outlined why we believe that this amendment is inappropriate and I do not intend to say more on that. Individuals will be able to check the details of their own entry on the register. We hope to make that possible by means of a secure online check. I know that noble Lords were concerned about how to ensure that the facility operates easily, smoothly and sensibly. We think that this proposal will be helpful. In any event, they will be able to make a written subject access request under the Data Protection Act.
	If individuals are concerned that there is an error on the register, they can request that the information is removed or corrected. In the normal course of events, the problem should be solved without the need for reliance on formal legal rights. Ultimately, however, as I indicated, an unreasonable failure to rectify information can be the subject of a formal application for rectification made to the courts under Section 14 of the Data Protection Act.
	Amendment No. 84 seeks to add to the remit of the National Identity Scheme Commissioner both general policy matters and areas that are currently excluded from his remit if any of those areas raises a matter of substantial public interest. The effect would be that the commissioner would have oversight of an excluded matter where a particular case raised a concern of substantial public interest.
	In Committee, I outlined why the matters set out in Clause 24(3) have been excluded from the jurisdiction of the commissioner: because they fall under the jurisdiction of other bodies, be it Parliament, the courts or a different statutory commissioner. I also gave a detailed account of why the matters contained within paragraphs (a) to (d) of Amendment No. 84 are not issues with which the commissioner should become involved. I do not propose to repeat those arguments as I am sure that all noble Lords opposite have had the opportunity to read them in detail; it was on 19 December 2005, at col. 1522.
	Amendment No. 84 would, additionally, give the commissioner oversight of "general policy matters". Our view is that it is unnecessary to include that in the Bill. The Secretary of State will be establishing the policy for the agency and the agency will implement that policy. The commissioner will be keeping under review the arrangements made by the agency, by designated documents authorities or those to whom information is provided. Nothing in the Bill prevents the commissioner from commenting on any policy matter in one of his reports. Indeed, we would expect him to do so. However, we are of the view that it is inappropriate to list in the Bill all matters which the commissioner may choose to look at, or comment on in his reports. To do that would make the legislation unnecessarily lengthy, and in our view that should be avoided.
	I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords that the commissioner's remit is sufficiently wide to ensure that the scheme has the appropriate level of oversight and I would invite the noble Lords not to press their amendments. I absolutely understand noble Lords' concerns to ensure that the commissioner has comprehensive opportunities to make comment. We believe that the way in which we have drawn Amendment No.77 enables the commissioner to do everything which is proper. I therefore beg to move while inviting the noble Lords not to do so.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 77, Amendment No. 78:
	Line 2, after "arrangements" insert "and uses"

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I should like first to thank the Government for Amendment No. 77, which is important and covers a great deal—indeed, the central parts—of my concern in Committee. It makes the role of the commissioner much clearer, much firmer and much better.
	Of the five amendments in my name, Amendments Nos. 78 to 82, the one which seems to have, dare I say, particular merit is Amendment No. 78. I am not quite clear why the Minister rejected it. Clause 24(2) sets out four areas where,
	"the function of the Commissioner"
	is
	"to keep under review".
	Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) start by referring to "the arrangements" for this or that. Paragraph (d) does not start with "the arrangements" for anything, but says:
	"the uses to which ID cards are being put".
	For the life of me, I cannot therefore understand why the addition of the words "and uses" to the sentence,
	"Where the commissioner reviews any arrangements",
	at the start of government Amendment No. 77, would not be helpful and clarificatory. If Amendment No. 77 is left as it starts, it would appear that its purview is only in respect of the first three paragraphs—those which deal with arrangements—and not the fourth, which deals with uses.
	I would be grateful if the Minister could review what she said on that. I will certainly do so. I accept that Amendments Nos. 79 to 82 are inessential amendments, but I thought that they were improving ones. It struck me that to talk of reviewing the effectiveness with which arrangements are undertaken is better than reviewing,
	"the extent to which the arrangements make appropriate provision".
	For a start, it is shorter. I also think that, in this context, "effectiveness" is a more effective term than talking about,
	"the extent to which the arrangements make appropriate provision".
	However, I am not going to go to the stake on that or the other amendments which are pursuant to it. I beg to move.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, when, on the sixth day in Committee, amendments were moved to ensure that the commissioner would review and report on the extent to which there were proper arrangements for securing the confidentiality and integrity of the information recorded in the register and that there were effective arrangements for dealing with complaints, the Minister argued, at col. 1519 of the Official Report, that it was not necessary to do so as the spirit of the amendments was already reflected in Clause 24 and because the existing complaints procedures were more than adequate. She has now taken a welcome step forward and her new Amendment No. 77 is certainly helpful.
	The Minister has argued that the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, are largely drafting amendments and do not add very much. He said that they were improving amendments but did not pursue most of them with any great determination. I think that there is a rather stronger case to be made out for them. In our last debate on these issues, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, pointed out that the commissioner's role was confined to considering structures and frameworks. The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, tighten up the new subsection to ensure that the commissioner will not just examine appropriate provision but consider whether the arrangements really are effective and work in practice.
	The issue of complaints had been raised by the Select Committee on the Constitution in paragraph 7 of its third report. The last time that we debated this matter, the Minister argued:
	"It would be wrong to give the commissioner a formal role in the investigation of complaints".
	She repeated that argument this afternoon. She then said that it would be a routine function that the new agency would need to fulfil and that the United Kingdom Passport Service already had a tried and tested system for dealing with complaints. On that occasion, she did not appear to recognise that the handling of complaints about the accuracy of the register and the uses to which it will be put is not at all the same as the handling of complaints about the manner in which passports are issued.
	The Minister went on to give us a description of what she believed was a satisfactory complaints procedure. She said:
	"There is an existing four-stage complaints procedure which includes a review by the local customer service manager, followed, if not satisfied, by a review by the headquarters' customer service department. If not satisfied, a complainant can write through their MP to the Passport Service chief executive or a Home Office Minister and then, as I have already said, to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—the ombudsman".—[Official Report, 19/12/05; col. 1520.]
	Anyone who has had to deal with the so-called "customer service" organisation of any large body—as I have had to do recently—will know what a nightmare it can be. After a long session in which you are asked to key in various numbers on your telephone and a prolonged lecture—admittedly, usually imposed by some regulator—about your rights, you then listen for probably a quarter of hour, at your expense, while someone says that you are a customer and your custom is greatly valued. Eventually you get through, only to be moved on to someone else and to have to wait for another 22 minutes—as happened to me the other day—before you get connected. If the Minister had had the privilege which some of us have had of being a Member of Parliament and going through the procedures by which you pass on complaints to Ministers and the ombudsman, then I do not think that she would have read that part of Sir Humphrey's draft with quite the confidence she did on the last occasion. It seems a far from satisfactory set of arrangements.
	Amendment No. 83, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Anelay, will give the commissioner the responsibility of setting up a system for dealing with complaints that tailor the whole thing to the requirements of the register. It would not give the commissioner himself the job of dealing with detailed complaints. I agree with the Minister that that should not be his role.
	The final amendment in this group, Amendment No. 84, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Anelay, takes up the issue raised by the Minister on 19 December, at col. 1523, when she attempted to justify the fact that the Bill requires the commissioner's reports to be made to the Secretary of State and not to Parliament on the ground that the Secretary of State must have the right to exclude sensitive material concerning security and crime prevention.
	It is hard to see why that should be necessary if the commissioner is specifically precluded from keeping those matters under review, as he is by Clause 24(3). We understand perfectly well, however, why there needs to be a protecting mechanism, and our Amendment No. 84, which will be very relevant when we debate the next group of amendments, maintains the necessary safeguards but allows the commissioner to keep under review general policy matters, particularly issues of substantial public interest that may arise from particular cases without, of course, going into the details of those cases in a way that could prejudice security or crime prevention.
	That is a sensible way in which to proceed, and I hope that the House will agree.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it seems to me that unless the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, regarding usage is inserted, then the uses to which ID cards are to be put under subsection (2)(d) will be excluded from the noble Baroness's amendment. The amendment says:
	"Where the Commissioner reviews any arrangements in accordance with subsection (2)".
	That refers to arrangements, not to uses. I understood the Minister to say when she introduced her amendment that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, was unnecessary. I am afraid that that is an abuse of the English language. If one says that we must look at arrangements, we look at arrangements—uses are by their nature excluded. So a provision that puts in a "use" is either deliberate or bad English. Which is it?

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I seem to remember that the whole point about the previous amendment was that the Information Commissioner would keep a beady eye on all this stuff on our behalf and everything would be fine—which is why we did not need the extra protection of Amendment No. 76. The word "uses" surely means data sharing, among other things. I would not necessarily call data sharing an arrangement. If it is trying to provide information, it is a use. I am sure that clever lawyers in government departments who wanted to get the information could argue that. I therefore believe that we need the word "uses" here, or we need Amendment No. 76 back.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I too thank the Government for tabling their amendment. It meets the commitment in their letter to noble Lords which followed our Committee debates. In the letter, they maintained that they had always intended that the National Identity Scheme Commissioner should as part of his function keep under review the development and operation of the complaints procedure to provide some kind of reassurance that the register is secure and reliable. They also maintained in the letter that they believed that the Bill already gives them the power to do that, but they offered to table an amendment to clarify the matter. That is what they have sought to do here. The whole question has been whether we are 100 per cent grateful or whether we feel that there is greater mileage in having greater clarity with regard to other amendments that have been tabled.
	I have tabled two amendments with my noble friend Lord Crickhowell—Amendments Nos. 83 and 84—but there is a more important amendment to come, on which my noble friend will lead, in regard to where a report is laid. I therefore feel that it would be churlish to push ahead on Amendments Nos. 83 and 84. Although I would have preferred Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 to have been accepted, I am not going to go to the stake on the issue if there are other robust safeguards. I think that the House has already decided on one with the appointment of the commissioner. I hope that the Government will be able to accept my noble friend's Amendment No. 85 with regard to a report being directed at Parliament and not via the Secretary of State.
	In soft pedalling and assisting the Government on Amendments Nos. 83 and 84, I am still not satisfied with the way in which the Minister sought to address the issue in Amendment No. 78, which has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. I agree with the noble Lord that, to coin a phrase, it is not appropriate to forge ahead on this one today given the other aspects of the debate and the other amendments on the role of the commissioner.
	I am rather perplexed that the Government say the words "and uses" should not be inserted. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, about what those two words should cover and that they should be on the face of the Bill. The Minister has not fully satisfied me on this issue but, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, it is not something on which I am going to go to the stake.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope I can clarify the issue in relation to "uses". The uses to which ID cards are put have a direct role in the two matters dealt with by government Amendment No. 77, which relates to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 24(2), but not to paragraph (d). That is why in opening in support of my Amendment No. 77—we discussed this at some length and that is why I was reluctant to do it all over again—I said that the "arrangements . . . for using" in Clause 24(2)(c) would in this context include "uses". Therefore Amendment No. 78, which seeks to add the word "uses" into the government amendment which clarifies the scope of Clause 24(2) is particularly inappropriate. The word "uses", as opposed to "arrangements . . . for using", does not appear in the subsection which is being clarified. Our amendment relates to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 24(2), but not to paragraph (d), which is why I say that it is correct.
	I absolutely understand noble Lords' concerns. We wish to draw Amendment No. 77 with the appropriate level of acuity. We believe that we have done so, because it does not relate to paragraph (d). With that further clarification, I hope that noble Lords opposite and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, will be appropriately grateful.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I fear that my legal intelligence may be much exercised and long in years, but it has always had a lumpen quality about it. I still do not follow the Minister's arguments but no doubt I will when I look at them in Hansard. If I do not, I shall certainly not refrain from bringing the amendment back at the next stage, especially as I have had a great deal of support from other noble Lords. However, at this moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 78, as an amendment to Amendment No. 77, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 79 to 82, as amendments to Amendment No. 77, not moved.]
	On Question, Amendment No. 77 agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 not moved.]
	Clause 25 [Reports by Commissioner]:

Lord Crickhowell: moved Amendment No. 85:
	Page 22, line 26, leave out "make a report to the Secretary of State" and insert "lay before each House of Parliament a general report"

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, we now come to what I believe are two very important amendments. In considering the Bill, we must have as our first and primary responsibility the protection of the interests of the citizen. That should also be the first and primary responsibility of the National Identity Scheme Commissioner.
	The noble Baroness believes that the primary job of the commissioner is to advise the Secretary of State and to reassure him that the identity card scheme is operating correctly. That somewhat bizarre proposition was contained in the Minister's response to the seventh report of the Select Committee on the Constitution, which recommended that the commissioner should report directly to Parliament—exactly as the Information Commissioner does, which seems a pretty good precedent. I urge the House to reject the proposition advanced by the noble Baroness and to accept Amendment No. 85, which would ensure that the commissioner lays reports before each House of Parliament.
	The existence of the register and the way in which it is used—or misused—are not trivial matters. They will affect fundamental rights and freedoms. As we discovered during our lengthy examination of the Bill, the Government are taking wide powers to amend the legislation by order. The noble Baroness, on day 6, acknowledged at col. 1518 that while there was no commissioner dealing with passports or driving licences, the Government recognised that the introduction of the identity card scheme, "raises additional issues", and so believed that it was right to create what she termed a "new level of oversight".
	We can surely agree that the matter raises additional issues. It creates the register to which a large number of organisations will have access. If we are to have a new level of oversight, surely in logic the commissioner should report to Parliament and not to the Secretary of State, whose department and agencies he is overseeing. It is crucial that the commissioner has the widest possible freedom to do his job and to report what he deems appropriate, subject only to restrictions regarding issues relating to security and crime prevention, contained in Clause 24(3), which we discussed in the previous group. In addition to the topics excluded by that clause from the matters that the commissioner is to keep under review, and which he can report on, my Amendment No. 85A will exclude from his report subjects which, after consultation with the Secretary of State, the commissioner judges to be prejudicial to security or the detection of crime.
	The noble Baroness built her case to send the report directly to the Secretary of State around those security questions. In practice, and because of the combination of the two provisions to which I have referred, that argument cannot be sustained. The Minister may argue that Clause 25(3) requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a copy of any report made to him by the commissioner, but that is not the same thing at all.
	Noble Lords with experience of how government works will envisage clearly the pressures that will be placed on the commissioner to exclude from his report any material that the Secretary of State would prefer to keep from Parliament and the people. That is particularly likely in the case of the Home Office. It is a great department of state, and it knows it. There is a certain feeling of superiority that makes those who work there feel that they are perhaps rather better than others—the hoi polloi. It is the sort of attitude that I first experienced rather painfully in my first days as a member of the Cabinet dealing with the sensitive issues of Welsh language broadcasting.
	I have had other experience—not with the Home Office, but with other departments. Mine was an unusual pattern, in that I was first a Cabinet Minister for eight years and then for eight years I chaired a very large quango—the National Rivers Authority. In our early days we established an enviable reputation for robust independence. Over the years that followed, both the department and the Minister of State responsible for agriculture sought delicately to assert some influence over the line that we should take. It was all beautifully done—very seldom did the Secretary of State himself intervene. There would be a telephone call from a senior official, many of whom were close friends, and whom I greatly respected. There were clear implications that altogether life would be much smoother if we took a rather different line. There was a great deal of press briefing that Lord Crickhowell had gone native on the environment, which I took to be a considerable compliment. It was an indication to my successor when he took over at the Environment Agency that perhaps they would value and support someone who was rather less independent.
	Partly on the basis of that experience, I do not want the commissioner to be placed in a situation when such pressures can be easily applied. I want him to be a free, independent and robust defender of the interests of every citizen whose name will have been placed compulsorily on the register, reporting not to the Secretary of State, but about the Secretary of State and his agency's management and conduct of the ID cards project and the register. I want his reports to be placed before Parliament directly, not indirectly. It is Parliament, not the Executive, which is the proper defender of the interests of citizens and their rights. I beg to move.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the concept of identity cards is so alien to British history—for several of us, it is extremely offensive—that I hope that eventually the legislation will be repealed and cast into the dustbin of history. It is therefore extremely difficult to trust a Secretary of State in an Administration that has had, and continues to have, such a cavalier attitude to our historic liberties, or to trust a government not to do what my noble friend Lord Crickhowell says they will do. As my noble friend says, it is Parliament—or should be—that defends our historic liberties. We should certainly trust Parliament more than the executive, however supine it sometimes is in the face of the executive. Therefore, on the basis of old-fashioned British liberty, I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell 100 per cent.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment wholeheartedly. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, for not adding my name to it. Every word that he said I believe to be right. The arguments that I adduced in moving the amendment to have the appointment of the commissioner made a Crown appointment apply equally here. I remind the House that we had a tussle over the same issue when we debated the creation of the interception commissioner under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. I think that the House decided to make the report of the interception commissioner one that went to Parliament. For all the reasons that noble Lords have given vent to this afternoon, we should insist on the amendment.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, there is an old saying that just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you. Some of us feel that that could arise with ID cards and the national identity register. The easiest way to allay this—I hope unjustified—paranoia and to believe that everything is all right would be to ensure that there is an independent check so that the report does not go through the very person who controls the national identity register. It is illogical that a person's employee, effectively, or someone within the same department, should report to the person on whom they are having to report. Instead, the commissioner should report directly to Parliament where liberties are, we hope, safeguarded. I very much support the amendment.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as a former Member of the other place, I should like to say a couple of words in support of the excellent amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. The way in which Parliament is being ignored and sidelined is increasingly worrying to me and to many other people. The great benefit of this amendment is that it will introduce a concept that, in matters of such import as the identity card register or the identity card itself, the commissioner should be responsible through his report not to the Home Department but to Parliament. That is an altogether sensible proposition.
	The Government ought to show goodwill by accepting the amendment. In so doing, they may very well restore confidence in the belief that the Government continue to believe in Parliament as the true representative of the interests and freedoms of this country and not simply as the servant of the political party that happens to be in power for the time being.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend's amendment, to which I have added my name. The Constitution Committee's third report made a clear recommendation that the commissioner should be able to report directly to Parliament. The amendment would achieve that objective, while also ensuring that a filtering mechanism would enable material to be excluded from the public report where there was a good reason to believe it would be prejudicial to national security or to the prevention or detection of crime. Despite the fact that the commissioner is appointed by the Secretary of State—although, fortunately, if the Government accept the decision of the House, he will be appointed by the Crown—we believe that he is carrying out a public function for which he should be accountable directly to Parliament.
	As we have remarked in the past, the Bill's provisions mark a completely new departure in the relationship between the state and the individual. Parliament has a vital role to play in the system of accountability for the oversight of the operation of the scheme. Amendments Nos. 85 and 85A broaden the commissioner's powers by ensuring that that reporting takes place directly to Parliament. They provide a filtering system; we believe that the way in which a filter is provided to ensure that sensitive information is not included in the report that goes to Parliament fully meets the arguments put by the Minister when we debated these matters in Committee. I hope that the Government are now able to accept the amendments.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the arguments in support of these amendments. However, as I stated when we discussed these issues in Committee, the Government consider it necessary for the reports to be addressed to the Secretary of State with the potential for parts of them to be excluded from the report laid before Parliament.
	I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, says about that contention; he suggests that it is bizarre that we should so decide. However, this situation has prevailed in a number of other positions. I have already made it clear that there are precedents for the removal of sensitive aspects of the reports of statutory commissioners before they are laid before Parliament. For example, similar mechanisms to the one in this clause apply in relation to the Surveillance Commissioner, the Intelligence Services Commissioner and Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary.
	Clause 25 contains safeguards to ensure that there is sufficient scrutiny of the commissioner's reports, because all reports prepared by the commissioner will be laid before Parliament. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, says about his experience. The views that he expresses reflect the feeling almost of awe in which the Home Office was hitherto held. I can assure noble Lords that there is an appropriate degree of vigour and scrutiny when it comes to the Home Office of today. There is no longer any such imbalance.
	In addition, there are only two reasons why matters may be excluded from the report that is laid before Parliament. Those are if the publication of the material would be prejudicial to national security or to the prevention and detection of crime. A precedent for reporting directly to Parliament is, for instance, the Information Commissioner; he has very wide enforcement powers, but they are unrelated to national security matters. The Immigration Services Commissioner is a regulatory commissioner of immigration services providers who reports directly to Parliament. We have to look at each commissioner and the role that they are to perform, and then decide where the appropriate reporting responsibilities should lie. We believe that they lie in the way that we have outlined. This is not, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, would cast it, a cavalier attitude; it is a very careful and balanced approach to the way in which reporting should be dealt with.
	Under Amendment No. 85A, the commissioner would have the final say over which matters would be excluded from his reports. We do not think that the commissioner is the right person to make that decision. The Secretary of State, by virtue of his overarching responsibilities, has a thorough overview of issues affecting national security and the prevention and detection of crime. For this amendment to be workable and for the National Identity Scheme Commissioner to be capable of making an informed decision about what should or what should not be excluded from the report, he would have to be briefed on national security and crime in the way that the Secretary of State is. Aside from being an illogical and disproportionate way of ensuring that certain sensitive information does not get into the public domain, that would significantly change the nature of the commissioner's role. I hope that that is not something which noble Lords would easily contemplate.
	The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, talked about access to the register. In case noble Lords are under any misapprehension about that, I reiterate that a number of organisations which he suggests would have access to the register will not. I hope that I can reassure noble Lords that the Bill allows the Secretary of State to provide information in particular circumstances to those authorised—for example, to the police or security services. However, provision of information that has been requested is very different from unfettered access, which this Bill does not allow.
	The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, may well be right that this is a sign of paranoia. I hesitate to suggest that noble Lords are paranoid, but, for the purposes of this argument, I can certainly accept that the noble Earl may be right. Let me assure them that the Bill is not out to get anyone. It is delivering a fair, proportionate response, and the commissioner will have an extremely important role, which can properly be discharged in the way we have indicated. I hope that I have persuaded noble Lords to be a little more moderate in the way in which they consider the Government's proposals and not to press these amendments.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I noted her description of the modern Home Office. I cannot say that it entirely coincided with my recent impression of the conduct of a number of Home Secretaries, but we shall leave that. I did not say that the defence that she had put up on grounds of security and law were bizarre; I said that I thought it was bizarre to believe that the primary job of the commissioner is to advise the Secretary of State and give him reassurance that the identity cards scheme is operating correctly. Indeed, I took seriously the arguments about security. I believe that the combination of Clause 24(3) with its tight direction to what can be looked at by the commissioner, combined with my Amendment No. 85A, will provide perfectly adequate protection. This is such an important matter that I want to seek the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 85) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 145; Not-Contents, 139.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 85A:
	Page 22, line 28, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert—
	"( ) The Commissioner may also, at any time, lay before Parliament such other reports on any matter relating to the carrying out of those functions as the Commissioner thinks fit.
	( ) If it appears to the Commissioner, after consultation with the Secretary of State, that the publication of a particular matter contained in a report under this section would be prejudicial to—
	(a) national security, or
	(b) the prevention or detection of crime,
	the Commissioner must exclude that matter from the copy of the report that he lays before Parliament.
	( ) Where the Commissioner excludes from publication any matter under the provisions of this section, he must make a report on that matter to the Secretary of State."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 85. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendments Nos. 86 to 92 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

The Earl of Northesk: moved Amendment No. 93:
	After Clause 26, insert the following new clause—
	"TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD
	(1) There shall be a Technical Advisory Board ("the Board") consisting of such number of persons appointed by the Secretary of State as he may by order provide.
	(2) The order providing for the membership of the Board must also make provision which is calculated to ensure that—
	(a) the membership of the Board includes persons likely effectively to represent the interests of the citizen in respect of civil liberties, with particular reference to the privacy of the individual;
	(b) the membership of the Board includes persons likely effectively to represent the interests of the information technology industry, with particular reference to biometrics and the security of the IT infrastructure of the National Identity Scheme;
	(c) the membership of the Board includes persons likely effectively to represent the interests of law enforcement and national security;
	(d) the membership of the Board includes such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks fit to appoint as members of the Board; and
	(e) the Board is so constituted as to produce a balance between the representation of the interests mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d).
	(3) The order providing for the membership of the Board must also make provision which is calculated to ensure that the Board reports to both Houses of Parliament on an annual basis.
	(4) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.
	(5) It shall be the duty of the Board to offer advice on the development of the National Identity Scheme."

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I apologise for having been unable to attend the last day in Committee just before Christmas, when this matter would have been debated. I therefore hope that your Lordships will forgive me for retabling both this and other amendments on Report. The amendment proposes the establishment of a technical advisory board to advise on a number of areas relating to the development of the national identity register. I express gratitude to my noble friend Lord Cope. I have, as it were, borrowed the text of the amendment from him. Although I have broadened its scope somewhat, the House may recognise it from a previous incarnation as an amendment that he made to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.
	The proposal is in part motivated by the recognition of the Constitution Committee of,
	"the desirability of creating an independent expert advisory or consultative committee or commission to exercise informed judgement regarding development of the National Identity Scheme".
	I can be certain that the Government will reject the amendment. As did the Minister earlier in our proceedings and in her helpful letter of 11 January—I thank her for it—she will list the various bodies that have been established to develop the scheme to fruition: the biometric advisory group, the Home Office's Biometrics Centre of Expertise, the biometrics assurance group and so on. Nevertheless, the Government have invested a great deal of political capital in this Bill. It is a key component of their legislative programme for this Parliament. It is not unreasonable to suggest that our scrutiny so far has exposed manifest flaws in the scheme, not least in respect of cost, technology, civil liberties and privacy.
	I make it clear that I do not in any way question the integrity or the expertise of the various bodies cited. Nevertheless, they are of necessity creations of government and, to that extent, their remit is rooted in the determination of the Home Office to enact this measure regardless. Quite apart from that, it is worth noting that, in making its recommendation, the Constitution Committee took due account of the bodies already established by the Government. It none the less felt the situation warranted the creation of an outside body to "exercise informed judgment". That is what the amendment would provide. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I fully support my noble friend. The amendment follows a recommendation of the Constitution Committee and it is eminently sensible.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, we on these Benches also think that there is much practical merit in the amendment.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. It is a practical proposal that could well help: the more minds cast on the thorny issue, the better.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am certainly grateful for the brevity of the contributions on this amendment. I shall endeavour to put over as effectively as I can our case in opposition to it. I have a strong sense of déjà vu, because it was I who had to deal with the proposal of a technical advisory board during our consideration of RIPA.
	The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, seeks to establish an advisory board to offer advice on the development of the national identity scheme and to report annually to both Houses of Parliament. The board's membership would consist of representatives from the IT industry, biometrics specialists, law enforcement bodies and civil liberties groups. The last groups would have a particular interest in the privacy of the individual.
	As the noble Earl said, the amendment was tabled in Committee and was then withdrawn for understandable reasons. As agreed, we addressed the amendment in correspondence at the close of the Committee stage. The letter was copied to all noble Lords who had taken part in the various debates on the Bill. As we stated in that letter, this additional scrutiny of the scheme is neither warranted nor necessary. That is because there is already sufficient independent oversight of the scheme's development.
	In the first instance, the National Audit Office will provide an expert and thorough examination of the economy, effectiveness and efficiency of the scheme's use of public funds. This is the case for all government projects. However, the identity cards scheme will have several additional layers of scrutiny, as we detailed in our correspondence. For your Lordships' convenience, I will now repeat for the record exactly what we wrote.
	The Government's biometrics assurance group will be chaired by the Government's Chief Scientist. It will review the biometric aspects of the ID cards programme, in conjunction with the Home Office's Biometrics Centre of Expertise, led by the Chief Biometric Officer, Marek Rejman-Greene. All this will build on the work of the ID cards agency's own biometric advisers and their co-operation with other recognised biometric research institutes, such as the National Physical Laboratory. This group has already met and will meet quarterly throughout the year.
	Additionally, an independent assurance panel will look at project management, finance, procurement and the other aspects of the programme that are not covered by the biometrics assurance group. This panel, which meets monthly, is chaired by Mr Alan Hughes, a former chief executive of First Direct Bank. The chair of the independent assurance panel serves also as a non-executive member of the identity cards programme board. The IT infrastructure of the national identity register will also be put through an official security accreditation process, as laid out in Cabinet Office guidelines, before it can commence operations. Furthermore, this process will be followed by continuing audits of the register's IT security.
	The scheme's development is also scrutinised by the principal users group and private sector users group, which represent the interests of public and private sector organisations who will make use of the scheme. Consultations have taken place between the identity cards programme and special needs groups and we will continue these. Additionally, there is continuing dialogue between law enforcement agencies and the programme team to ensure that their requirements are considered as the scheme develops.
	Civil liberties and privacy groups have already taken part in the consultations, which took place on the scheme and on the draft Bill. In addition, the National Identity Scheme Commissioner will provide further scrutiny of the scheme, which will of course also be bound by data protection legislation and therefore comes under the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner.
	I hope that your Lordships would agree that, taken together, those will provide a very great variety and depth of scrutiny. We believe that adding further layers would not add to the quality of scrutiny, but duplicate it and increase the levels and layers of bureaucracy. The technical advisory board is therefore unnecessary. I can reassure the noble Earl that the scheme will not be implemented unless the Government are sure that the technology is robust and effective.
	It is worth making a few comments about the comparison with the Technical Advisory Board established under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. That board was created under the terms of the Act and is a very different creature from the board suggested in this amendment. The role of the board is very closely defined. It ensures that any technical or financial obligations placed on industry arising from an interception warrant are reasonable. A company can appeal to the board if it believes that this is not the case; to date the board has not had to consider a single case. The board does not provide general advice about the development of operations, based on the Act as a whole. Such general advice is obtained through the close consultation between the Home Office and the industry itself. The board is required neither to report to Parliament, nor to have its membership approved by Parliament.
	With the development of the independent assurance panel, the biometrics assurance group, consultations with public sector, private sector and special needs user groups, and the advice of the scheme commissioner, we believe we have put in place a comprehensive framework to ensure independent, wide-ranging and informed advice, which can be obtained to guide the development of the scheme in total. I reject the assertions made by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, that we are failing to address issues of cost or technology, or the development of the scheme as it unrolls. We have put in place many safeguards and structures to ensure that we have a structure and a number of bodies in place, which will enable us to consult extensively throughout the development of the identity cards programme. For those reasons, we reject this amendment and I invite the noble Earl to withdraw it.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. As I made plain in my introduction to the amendment, I had anticipated the content of his response. To that extent my expectations have not in any way been disappointed. Our debates today have focused very firmly on the principle that oversight of the whole ID scheme should more properly reside with those who are truly independent of the Home Office and the rest of government. I have to continue to beg to differ with the noble Lord, given that so many uncertainties persist in respect of cost, technology and so on. To my mind it is necessary that the development of policy should also be subject to truly independent oversight. My intention is again to be of assistance to the Government. After all, the existence of a technical advisory board should pre-empt the possibility of the Home Office being inadvertently led down policy avenues that turn out to be technological dead ends or the like. Be that as it may, I shall carefully read the noble Lord's comments—even though I virtually wrote them for him in my introduction—and reflect on where I may yet wish to take this matter. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 94 to 97 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	Clause 29 [Unauthorised disclosure of information]:

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 98:
	Page 25, line 43, after first "he" insert "knowingly or recklessly"

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, my noble friend's Amendment No. 100, to leave out Clause 31, is grouped with my amendment. I look forward to hearing from him and I suspect that he will have some trenchant questions to ask the Minister about the need for this clause, particularly in view of the existing protections available in the Computer Misuse Act. When this week the Government published their new Police and Justice Bill—as if we needed another Home Office Bill; they rain down upon us—I noticed in passing that there is reference in the Bill—

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, when the noble Baroness says,
	"as if we needed another Home Office Bill",
	I think the heart of the whole House goes out to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, because this is a very personal matter for her. She seems to be the only competent Minister in the House, to gather by the load put upon her shoulders. In all the clash and battle of conflict, I would like to register my sympathy for her.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, indeed, we regularly share our heartfelt sympathy. It is just that we do not seem to be able to move her right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the right direction. He keeps on showering Parliament with these Bills.
	A couple of clauses in the Police and Justice Bill refer to computer misuse. I think that it would be helpful if we were able, between now and Third Reading, to see whether there is any read-across. I confess that when I downloaded the Bill in PDF format at the weekend, it took some while to do so by remote. I did not get to the stage where I could read every part of that Bill, but there may well be some read-across. By the look on the face of the noble Baroness, I hope that there may not be.
	We welcome the objective behind Clause 29, which is to create a criminal offence of disclosure without lawful authority of information that is held on the national identity register. Amendment No. 98 would put an obligation on the prosecution to prove that the person made the disclosure "knowingly or recklessly". We are merely seeking to ensure that somebody who accidentally makes a disclosure is not treated in the same way as somebody who has malicious intent in making that disclosure or, perhaps, is so unprofessional that he does not adopt what is normally good practice in his methods and therefore allows the material to be leaked.
	I was rather puzzled by the response of the Minister in another place to a similar amendment. He held that the amendment was unnecessary because an individual who was conscientious and acting responsibly could find a defence in subsection (4). The difficulty in subsection (4) is that the defence only covers somebody who believes at the time of disclosure that they have reasonable grounds or lawful authority to make the disclosure. I am concerned about the situation that may well arise—and this may reflect what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has said regarding the assiduity of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, and the huge workload that she carries—where somebody who works wholeheartedly according to good practice throughout their career, but is very tired at the end of a long day, particularly if the Opposition have kept them in the House until 12.30 am, follows what they think is the normal procedure. This person does everything they possibly can to do the right thing, but when sending information by e-mail they simply press the wrong button and send out the information to the wrong recipient. Alternatively, perhaps they send out the information but it is corrupted and is not sent in the right way. My concern is that at that stage that person does not have the authority to disclose the information to the person who receives it, so although they think that they are doing the right thing—that they have the authority to make the disclosure—they disclose it to the wrong person, albeit not irresponsibly. Can we be assured that such a person will not come across any difficulty as a result of the current drafting of the Bill? I beg to move.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, it may be of convenience to the House if I could speak in this group to Amendment No. 100, which proposes the deletion of Clause 31. None of us questions the desirability of maintaining the security and integrity of the register. At first blush, therefore, the inclusion of the clause to deal with the possibility of its being tampered with is both sensible and welcome. But, in reality, the way in which it has been drafted creates all sorts of problems. I shall turn to those in due course.
	First, it is important, so far as we can, to understand the IT architecture that the Government are contemplating. As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, told us:
	"The national identity register is not physically connected to the Internet or any publicly available network".—[Official Report, 16/11/05; col. 1105.]
	I can understand that. Clearly, and sensibly, the intention is that the scheme should operate via closed and secure servers. But we also know—because the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has told us and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, confirmed it last week—that facility will exist for individuals to access their records on the register via the Internet. I can understand that too. Presumably data will be uploaded to firewalled gateway servers, which will, in turn, access the secure register servers to submit the revised information or, indeed, for verification and validation purposes. In fact, as envisaged by Clauses 11 and 19 to 23, there will be a myriad of such gateways, not least to satisfy the law enforcement and national security purposes of the scheme. To that extent, therefore, it will probably be more accurate to say that the register will be "connected" to the Internet, albeit virtually rather than physically. That relates back to the point that I made earlier in respect of DNA data, but, again, I am not going to go down that path.
	Unfortunately, so far as I understand it, Clause 31 creates only the offence of tampering with the register; it does not provide any protection for these gateways. That is crucial because, in effect, they are likely to be the weakest and least secure links of the design. To illustrate the point, we can consider so-called "denial-of-service" attacks. In effect, the gateways could be rendered inoperable by any given DOS attack, thereby compromising the register itself. Yet, as I read the clause, such a circumstance would not necessarily be covered by the current drafting.
	The Government may wish to argue that the provisions of the Computer Misuse Act offer adequate protection in this regard—something about which I and many others have expressed concern for some years. The Minister will know only too well that the view that the CMA provides adequate coverage is a very long way from being universally shared. Indeed, we have to approach its applicability to DOS attacks with healthy dollops of scepticism, not least because of the judgment a month or so ago in Wimbledon magistrates' court.
	Be that as it may, Clause 31 would appear in part to have been drafted to protect the register from such attacks, although, as I have already implied, I am far from convinced that the current drafting offers very much protection. Yet, in respect of all other governmental databases, it is argued that CMA is robust enough to be proof against such attacks. In her letter of 11 January—again, I express my gratitude to her for it—the noble Baroness correctly identifies that the provision in the Bill goes further than Section 3 of the CMA. Nevertheless, it strikes me as odd that the clause increases the penalties for unauthorised modification of information on the register while penalties for attacks on law enforcement IT systems or other elements of the critical national infrastructure system—air traffic control, hospital support systems and so on—remain consistent with the CMA. I do not decry the evident intent to secure the data on the register against attack—indeed, at many levels I welcome it—but can it really be said that it is that much more important a system than, say, the police national computer or the national health data spine, where, should their operation be compromised, a welter of life-threatening situations could develop?
	The Minister might like to imagine that the Police and Justice Bill, introduced in another place last Wednesday, offers adequate rebuttal to my comments here. On the face of it, Clauses 33 to 36 of that measure would appear to represent the much-needed update of the CMA. However, I am bound to say that Clause 35, intended to criminalise the development, distribution or possession of so-called "hacker tools", is especially asinine—not least because very few of these do not have entirely valid and legitimate uses.
	Moreover, the fact that these clauses effectively replicate the drafting of Clause 31 of this Bill, giving the appearance of having been added almost as an afterthought, adds weight to my argument. Surely a more appropriate way forward here would be to update the CMA properly rather than, on the one hand, singling out the register for this preferential treatment and, on the other, seeking to rely on the decidedly suspect drafting of the Police and Justice Bill.
	Indeed, viewed from an alternate perspective, if, as the Government have previously maintained, the CMA is an adequate measure to deal with the problem of DOS attacks generally across their IT infrastructure, or if it is supposed that Clauses 33 to 36 of the new Bill update the CMA appropriately, what useful purpose is therefore served by including this clause at all? As we have already experienced today, in defending amendments that seek to write elements of data protection into Bills, Ministers never tire of telling us that to do so would be otiose because such extant legislative provision has efficacy in any event. Viewed logically, the same could be said of this clause in respect of either the CMA or the Police and Justice Bill.
	But, as I have already implied, this is not the clause's only problem. Subsection (3)(b) is particularly troublesome. In terms, it defines "unauthorised modification" of data on the register as "conduct" which,
	"makes it more difficult or impossible for such information to be retrieved in a legible form . . . or contributes to making that more difficult or impossible".
	A host of wholly innocent circumstances could occasion such an event. For example, it is not unheard of for systems to crash when being subject to routine maintenance or updating. The House will no doubt recall the recent occasion involving 60,000 desktop computers at the Department for Work and Pensions. Is it really the intention that IT contractors servicing government computers should be criminally liable simply for making a mistake, or are civil servants to face prosecution for going on strike? What, too, of forensic hacking—possibly the most effective method of properly testing the parameters of an IT system's security and integrity? It seems to me that these are all circumstances that, notwithstanding the qualification of "requisite intent" at subsection (1)(b), could fall foul of the drafting at subsection (3)(b).
	As I have already indicated, I am fully aware of the contents of the letter of 11 January from the noble Baroness. It offers various reassurances about some of the issues that I have raised. While I suspect that a difference of opinion between the Government and myself will persist in respect of the Computer Misuse Act, none the less I should be extremely grateful if, for avoidance of doubt, the Minister could put on the record the interpretation of the scope of subsection (3)(b) contained in her letter when she comes to reply. Certainly that would assuage many of my anxieties about the clause. With that in mind, I look forward to her response.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, subject to anything that the noble Baroness may say, it would seem to me to be just if Amendment No. 98 were accepted because criminal liability without intent or recklessness is generally unacceptable. But I find it hard to believe that the deletion of Clause 31, with nothing in its place, can be in the public interest, despite the extremely learned exegesis of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk. Again, I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say but, as I said, I am inclined to oppose Amendment No. 100.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for his opposition to Amendment No. 100. It is rare in this Bill that I have his company and I want to record my gratitude for it. I also want to record my gratitude for his sympathy and that of the noble Baroness—I experience joy on a daily basis in appearing before your Lordships and going through these Bills. Far be it from me to have that joy curtailed, but I understand that in future your Lordships may be denied the undoubtable pleasure of my company in that we will, I hope, have fewer Bills.
	Amendment No. 98 relates to the criminal offence of unauthorised disclosure of confidential information provided for in Clause 29. I understand what worries the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I understand that she rightly says, "What about the person who, tired and worn down by the burdens of office, presses the right button or the wrong button? Will they be brought to book for it?". Perhaps I may reassure the noble Baroness in that regard. I tried to give such reassurance as fully as possible in my letter; I am more than happy to repeat during this debate what I said in the letter. It is our view that a person who, acting in good faith in the course of his job, accidentally made a disclosure could avail himself of the defence of reasonable belief. This would apply even if it was a physical error, such as accidentally pressing the wrong button. The person would reasonably have believed, at the time he made the error, that he was acting with lawful authority. That is the concern properly expressed by the noble Baroness, and we are very clear that such a person would be protected.
	Amendment No. 100 would remove from the Bill Clause 31 in its entirety. I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, put the amendment forward because he would like me to repeat the reassurances I gave in the letter and I am more than happy to do so. This clause introduces the offence of causing an unauthorised modification to the register. There is a similar defence to that in Clause 29. It is a defence for a person to show that he believed, on reasonable grounds, that a modification was authorised.
	I am also aware that a number of trade unions are concerned about what would happen if lawful action was taken. I will therefore take this opportunity to mention two sets of circumstances which we do not consider fall within the remit of this offence. IT contractors who, in servicing government computers, made a mistake that resulted in computers crashing would not have committed this offence. Similarly, Clause 31 would not criminalise striking civil servants, on the grounds that their action might make it temporarily impossible to retrieve information. Subsection (3)(b) catches only action that makes it more difficult or impossible for information to be retrieved in a legible form. It is aimed at deliberate acts of sabotage or the introduction of viruses and so on and will not catch a simple withdrawal of labour.
	Noble Lords have expressed interest in the extent to which the provisions of the Computer Misuse Act already cover the offence of tampering with the national identity register. I know it is something that preys almost constantly on the mind of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk. The Computer Misuse Act contains a range of offences designed to cover all aspects of computer misuse; indeed, that Act will, as the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, and the noble Baroness rightly indicated, be amended by the Police and Justice Bill in order to increase certain maximum penalties, and to respond to developments in cyber crime. The provisions of the Computer Misuse Act would apply to computer crime against the national identity register.
	Nevertheless, we felt it appropriate to create an offence of tampering, which relates specifically to the national identity register. Any computer crime against the register, which did not fall within the Clause 31 offence, could be dealt with under the wider provisions of the Computer Misuse Act. The Clause 31 offence attracts a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment and would apply even where the tampering was effected by someone working from a computer outside the United Kingdom. In saying that, I hope that I have given the noble Earl the reassurance he sought and have answered the question of the noble Baroness. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her assurances. I am perfectly well aware that the Government have, throughout, sought to explain to those who will be operating this system, particularly those in the trade unions, that they will not fall foul of a prosecution if they were only trying to do their job. My concern is that subsection (4) does not clearly give them the defence they require, but as the noble Baroness has so clearly given that assurance on record today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 99 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
	Clause 31 [Tampering with the Register etc.]:
	[Amendment No. 100 not moved.]
	Clause 33 [Imposition of civil penalties]:

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: moved Amendment No. 101A:
	Page 29, line 8, after "notice" insert "(after warning)"

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I rise to move a manuscript amendment lodged today, grouped with Amendments Nos. 105A and 105B. Perhaps I may very briefly recount the unhappiness that existed at Committee stage with the whole of the penalty regime—that is, Clauses 33 to 36. A whole host of amendments to those three clauses were put down at the Committee stage and a great deal of debate ensued. It is fair to say that the relative absence of amendments to those three clauses at Report stage reflects the fact that the Government gave us all considerable reassurance at Committee stage with the contents of their code. The code is going to govern the way the penalty provisions work.
	That, I think, is a fair statement of the background. My amendments are designed, first, to ensure that the code deals with one particular concern—the warnings sent to those who are subsequently to receive penalty notices. Secondly, they deal with the issue of consultation. I shall refer first to the question of warnings. Clause 36(1) sets out that the Secretary of State,
	"must issue a code of practice setting out the matters that he will consider when determining the amount to be imposed in any case by way of civil penalty under this Act".
	At Committee stage I made the point, which the Government did not seek to countermand, that this appears only to relate, and literally only relates, to the question of the amount of the penalty. In discussions afterwards I think there was acceptance that we needed to broaden the language of Clause 36(1) to make it quite clear that the code of practice is concerned not only with the amount of the penalties but with the whole of the penalty regime in Clauses 33 to 35. Amendment 105A adds the words,
	"the manner of proceeding under sections 33 to 35",
	alongside the issue of determining the amount of a penalty.
	The amendment I put down this morning seeks to ensure that the warning given to those who have transgressed the ID regime is clearly part of Clause 36 and the manner of proceeding. I think I am right in saying that there is no reference anywhere in Clauses 33 to 36 to warning. There is of course long mention of notices of penalty, of appeals against penalty, and so on, but I am particularly concerned about the issue of warning. All those who spoke in Committee were anxious to ensure that the authorities would not impose a penalty until they had given the person against whom the penalty was to be imposed the chance to say what went wrong. Did they fall ill? Did they miss the bus? Is it wrong to say that they did not tip up at the place appointed and give their samples, or whatever else? In effect, it would ensure that the officials who have the task of arriving at the correct penalty do so with knowledge of the relevant facts; that is, that the penalty should not be imposed before the explanation has been heard. Those who spoke in Committee felt that it was not good enough simply to say that there was a right of appeal. People do not want to have to make an appeal where no penalty should have been imposed. Again, it is fair to say that Ministers—I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, who dealt with this matter—were not in any way opposed to the common sense of what was then being advanced.
	Manuscript Amendment No. 101A simply inserts a reference to the warning into Clause 33, so that it must be within the purview of Amendment No. 105A. The final amendment, Amendment No. 105B, deals with consultation and says:
	"Before the draft code is laid under subsection (4), the Secretary of State must consult with members of the public likely to be affected by the code".
	If one looks in Clause 17(5), which deals with checks to be made on the register by public authorities, one finds a comparable consultation provision.
	I submit that there is no more sensitive and important aspect of the Bill than the code of practice. It is our reassurance, on these Benches, that the absence of a great deal of the mechanics of the penalties in the Bill is something that we can wear, given a full and fair code of practice. It follows that, if that is correct, it is as important to have public consultation over the code as any other part of the Bill. I shall leave it at that. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I support the noble Lord on Amendment No. 101A and the whole issue of the warning. I do not think that it would be right if I repeated arguments on that, as I spoke on that subject in detail in Committee. The noble Lord is right in thinking that there was a feeling across the Chamber that it is not sufficient to say to somebody that there is a method of appeal; if you have not tried to be culpable in the first place, it is error rather than culpability, and one should not have to go through the position of going through a whole legal gamut of appealing to prevent a penalty being imposed.
	Amendment No. 105B refers specifically to consultation. I agree with the noble Lord; it is as important here as it is anywhere in the Bill that there should be consultation with the public on these matters. That was certainly brought home to me very clearly when I had a meeting on another Bill last week—the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill—with a group of people who had come together for the first time to express their views about how immigration legislation will affect them. They are representatives of Chinese, Bangladeshi and Indian communities. We had a discussion beyond the remit of the Bill about how consultation is or is not carried out.
	Last night, I received from the vice-chairman of the North London Chinese Association an email that is pertinent to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. The vice-chair raises the whole issue of how the Home Office currently carries out its consultation process and what plans it has to do so in future. I thought that it would be right to put on record one or two concerns that those communities have, because I have referred in the past to the race equality impact assessment, and the problems with that in this Bill. The questions that they ask are with regard to the fact that, if the Government are minded to carry out consultations—perhaps on Amendment No. 105A, but generally on the Identity Cards Bill—will they in future ensure that they,
	"include a non-compulsory invitation to the respondent to disclose the respondent's ethnic group when someone . . . responds to a government consultation"?
	Would they,
	"publish the ethnic breakdown of respondents to consultations",
	and will they,
	"encourage the Home Office to hurry up with the standard list of stakeholders",
	which they understand that the Home Office is in the process of compiling? They hope that the Government will,
	"make positive efforts to include the Chinese community and business associations on it".
	That raises the whole issue of how the Government anticipate consultation being carried out. In particular, will they consult on the code of practice with regard to penalties? That is a core issue; there will be a great deal of interest from the public generally and from specific ethnic groups within the community about how they would be affected by the code of practice on penalties. We have already had an indication of that from the CRE earlier in our debates on this measure.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, not for the first time, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for his amendment—in particular, his manuscript Amendment No. 101A to Clause 33, as well as his amendments to Clause 36, which raised some important points that require clarification.
	On Amendment No. 101A, we agree that there needs to be a warning before a penalty is imposed, but that this needs to be in the code of practice and not in the Bill. That is where we think it is most appropriate. However, on Amendment No. 105A, we believe that the noble Lord has spotted what we accept is an unintended omission from the Bill. The amendment is designed to widen the scope of the code of practice on civil penalties, which is required under Clause 36, from simply determining the amount to be imposed in any particular case by way of a civil penalty to the whole procedure for imposing civil penalties. That is how we are already interpreting the scope of the code; the initial draft that we issued on 9 December covers the whole procedure for civil penalties—not just the determination of the amount of the penalty. I invite the noble Lord to accept that point. We therefore accept that the code must be considered when determining not only the amount of the penalty to be imposed but whether a civil penalty should be imposed. On the basis that we bring back a government amendment on this at Third Reading, I invite the noble Lord not to move Amendment No. 105A.
	Amendment No. 105B would require consultation on the code of practice on penalties with members of the public likely to be affected before it is laid before Parliament. Again, we have sympathy with the purpose of the amendment. We intend to consult extensively on the code; indeed, as the noble Lord and the noble Baroness would readily acknowledge, we have already prepared an initial draft, which I am sure that many noble Lords have seen. It was placed in the Library on 9 December, and is on the identity cards website. Anyone with access to the Internet may now view it and comment on it if they wish. Once the Bill has received Royal Assent, we shall be in a position to launch a more formal consultation exercise. Having said all that, we do not believe that there is any need for the consultation to be specified as a requirement in the Bill. Although we are anxious to have the widest possible consultation, we have not yet undertaken specific ethnic monitoring of those who have responded; but we can look at the analysis of those who have responded and we shall look again to ensure that we are getting a representative response from ethnic minority groups.
	I hope, having said that, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful reply. I shall make two points. First, the Minister started by welcoming Amendment No. 101A and went on to say that of course the issue of warnings is integral to the whole proceedings under the relevant clauses—and that must be so. But I should be grateful if he would let me know, before I withdraw the amendment, whether the issue of warnings will find a place in the Bill at all. It seems odd that it does not, when it is such a crucial part of the whole mechanism. I do not see how an amendment to Clause 36 will cover the point if there is no reference in previous clauses to warnings. I do not see why it should not be relatively simple for the Government to bring back an amendment, drafted less clumsily than mine, which at least makes that clear.
	Secondly, the Minister accepts the importance of consultation. I too accept, and meant to say, that the draft code is already helpful. However, I do not for the life of me understand why the Government think it necessary to have a reference to the need for the Secretary of State to consult under Clause 17(5), but not under this clause. There is nothing more sensitive in public terms than the whole code in relation to penalties. I ask him at least to respond by saying that the Government will look again at the need for consultation under this part of the Bill, just as it already has it with regard to Clause 17. There is a reference to consultation in Clause 16 as well. Subject to those two points, I am a very malleable chappie, and I am inclined not to press the amendments.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am interested that the noble Lord thinks he is malleable. I have not noticed him being putty in our hands before. He is a very agreeable noble Lord, as is the noble Baroness, to deal with on practical matters.
	On the first question he raised, the issue of warning letters will not be dealt with in the Bill in the way he would like to see, but it will be incorporated as a matter of procedure in the code. We think that is where it is most appropriate, and that is how we intend to deal with it.
	On his second point, the consultation requirement is in Clauses 16 and 17 because there will be representative bodies of users of public services who would be appropriate to consult; for example, education and health interest groups in particular. But which members of the public are likely to be affected by the code of practice on civil penalties? Perhaps it is those who intend as a matter of misguided principle, one might say, not to comply with the provisions of the Bill. I cannot accept that special arrangements must necessarily be made to consult with those who intend to defy the law.
	The code will of course be laid before Parliament—as I said earlier on the website, so people can look at it carefully there—and we think that is sufficient. There will be ample scope for consultation within the framework we have set out. It will be extensive, and it is our intention to reach out to those groups who would otherwise ordinarily feel excluded from consultation, because we need to have their views on the way these procedures and penalties would operate.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful for that further explanation. I really do not understand the line of reasoning that says because the whole public are affected we cannot have consultation, but we do so where a lesser part of the public is affected. I am going to express my dissatisfaction on this aspect of the consultation, not move the matter to a vote now, maybe have more discussions and see where we get to. I am very ready to see what you come up with—I'm sorry, what the Government come up with regarding the way Clause 36 is drafted. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 33 [Imposition of civil penalties]:
	[Amendments Nos. 102 to 105 not moved.]
	Clause 36 [Code of practice on penalties]:
	[Amendments Nos. 105A and 105B not moved.]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 106:
	Page 31, line 25, at end insert—
	2 ( ) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 106A:
	Line 2, leave out from "section" to end of line 4 and insert "may not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House."

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, Amendment No. 106A is a self-evident provision. In amendment No. 106, the Government have sought to add to Clause 36 a requirement that a statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be subject to annulment. I am suggesting—

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thought the noble Lord had disposed with the group that started with amendment No. 102. All the previous four amendments were not called, which leaves amendment No. 106A at the end of that group. Was it the noble Lord's intention just to debate that specific amendment? I think it related to Amendment No. 106, but I might be wrong.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I think there is a bit of a muddle here in the groupings. Government Amendment No. 106 is in a separate group on its own, and my amendment No. 106A obviously relates to Amendment No. 106. I do not believe we have debated Amendment No. 106.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We have, my Lords; it is a Government amendment that has been approved. It was dealt with in an earlier sitting.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, if that be so, I have lost my chance with Amendment No. 106A, have I not?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: You have.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I sit down a disappointed Lord.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that there is no trickery on our part; I am just following procedure here.

[Amendment No. 106A not moved.]
	Clause 37 [Fees in respect of functions carried out under Act]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 107:
	Page 32, line 37, leave out "authorised by subsection (1) is exercisable" and insert "that he is authorised to make by subsection (1) is exercisable—
	(a) "
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 108:
	Page 32, line 39, leave out "only" and insert "and
	(b) on every subsequent occasion on which it appears to the Secretary of State that the power is being exercised for purposes that are not confined to the modification of existing fees to take account of changes in the value of money,
	only"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 40 [Amendments of legislation relating to passports]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 109:
	Page 35, line 10, leave out "authorised by this section which modifies" and insert "that he is authorised to make by this section for modifying"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendment No. 110:
	Page 35, line 12, at end insert—
	"( ) A statutory instrument containing an order which—
	(a) contains provisions that the Secretary of State is authorised to make by this section, and
	(b) is not an order a draft of which is required to have been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House,
	shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Selsdon: moved Amendment No. 111:
	After Clause 40, insert the following new clause—
	"PROOF OF IDENTITY
	(1) A passport issued to a British national by the United Kingdom Passport Service shall be proof of that person's identity.
	(2) The United Kingdom Passport Service shall issue upon request to any British passport holder an identity card ("British National Identity Card").
	(3) The British National Identity Card shall contain within it all information held in a United Kingdom Passport.
	(4) The British National Identity Card shall be accepted as proof of identity by any Government department or agency.
	(5) All other forms of proof of identity shall be secondary proof of identity to the United Kingdom Passport and the British National Identity Card."

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to move this amendment in this, the 100th anniversary of the Labour Party. I was sorry not to be invited to that great occasion, but I wonder, as history passes by, whether this legislation will be deemed to be groundbreaking or backbreaking. As I said to the Minister the other night, I think we are all on the same side, but we are all confused from different levels. I believe that people in this country accept the value of an identity card. Having accepted that, it is only a question of what identity card, and for what purpose. This is effectively the purpose of my amendment.
	I moved a similar amendment before, and withdrew. I also moved an amendment where there was a certain bit of confusion, but I wish to go back and say that the Minister and I start from opposing sides of the world. I start from the ultimate proof of identity—the passport. Having asked her if she would reconfirm the Answer I have had before to a Written Question, I would like to read it out:
	"The United Kingdom Passport Service, an executive agency of the Home Office, issues passports to British nationals in the UK. British passports are issued at the discretion of the Secretary of State by exercise of Royal prerogative, in line with the British Nationality Acts. A passport is issued only after an applicant's nationality status and identity has been confirmed, and is accepted throughout the world as proof of these".—[Official Report, 22/6/04; cols. WA 121–22.]
	The passport, therefore, is the ultimate identity card. There is no stronger identity card, none more valued, and it should not be replaced.
	We came afterwards to a certain little argument about what words should appear, and what name. I moved an amendment, which I withdrew, that the name should be as recorded in his passport, or in the form required for a passport. At that time, the noble Baroness did not quite agree with us and there was a rather amusing debate when we all accepted that none of our names would qualify.
	I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, as the other day I made a mistake. I was overwhelmed and forgot my lines. I called him "the noble Lord, Lord Swindon". In 18 of the 22 countries of the EEA, his last name is Swindon and, therefore, that is his last name. He pointed out in the debate that he was sometimes known as "Lord Stod of Swin". I am an "of" but the last bit of my name—"Croydon", of which, being a Scot, I am not desperately proud—does not appear in my passport because it is not a registered name. We went through some confusion, but the noble Baroness satisfied us in one of her notes—I was the only one in the Chamber who received it—which said that they were asking for the name that individuals are known by for all purposes, which is what applies when one goes for a passport. Without my having to move an amendment or to press it, the noble Baroness has quietly, surreptitiously and kindly answered my question. We have accepted that the passport is the ultimate proof of identity and that one's name will be as in one's passport. If that is the ultimate identity card, why do we need the Bill at all? If we started from the viewpoint that the identity card was the passport, we might not need it.
	Secondly, the amendment says that,
	"the United Kingdom Passport Service should issue upon request to any British passport holder an identity card"
	which will come anyway. It may be called a biometric identity card, but it will go with the passport. I then put in brackets "British National Identity Card" because that is how it should be known. If it is the ultimate identity card and it is proof of your nationality as a British national, why not call it the British national identity card?
	I also asked the Minister about all these foreigners who come over here. How will we know who they are? Surely they should have their nationalities on their identity card. The noble Baroness said:
	"I thank the noble Lord. The truth is that EU citizens do not have to surrender their own national cards when they come here. However, they will be eligible for a UK card if they are resident here, but it will not show nationality".—[Official Report, 15/11/05; col. 1008.]
	Anyone who does not have a British national identity card is a foreigner. I believe that we are keener to identify foreigners with identity cards than ourselves. However, that leads to even more confusion. I tried to push the Baroness gently at the time and asked whether there would be more than one identity card. She said, "No". I shall not quote her, as I cannot remember the column number and I shall lose my place in my papers. She said that there would be only one identity card. So I moved an amendment saying, "Let's make sure that we could not have more than one". Then she kindly said, "No, you can't do that because we might have to have more than one". There was then a flurry of feathers in the Home Office hen coop, and bits of paper came rushing across. The noble Baroness said, "Yes, there will be lots of identity cards effectively", and she even used the words "et cetera".
	It does not really matter if we have lots of identity cards, but it may have an impact on costs. The passport is the ultimate identity card and, to go with the passport, I hope, will be the British national identity card, which will enable us to travel within 22 or so states. The noble Baroness also pointed out that there were reasons for having the card because, effectively, it would be a travel card rather than an identity card. I suggest that it is an identity card, part of whose purpose is for travel. So that it may go on the record, I point out that the 22 countries that have identity cards for travel at the moment are Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Switzerland. There is no reason why the United Kingdom should not join that happy band of bedfellows. However, in many cases their identity cards and the data for them come from their passports, but there are problems when it comes to biometrics. The Germans do not want biometrics in any way. We will have biometrics, but if we have only two fingers that will take up two-thirds of the cost of the card, and there may be problems. I would like to ask the Minister—I may put down a Written Question—whether she could set out the conditions and data on each of the identity cards of the 22 states so that we can see how they are different. There is no point in us demanding more than is necessary to travel to those countries if that is one of the purposes of the British national identity card.
	I now come to the important question of the proof of identity. If the passport is the ultimate, then the British national identity card will come second and everything else comes third. In response to a Written Question from me, the Government kindly wrote back that the Department for Work and Pensions accepted 22 different pieces of paper for proof of identity. So the first thing in addition to the British national identity card is that there should be an identity card that is related solely to applications to the Department for Work and Pensions team for grants. That may be a slightly different one and of a different colour.
	Of course, other identity cards are issued at the moment to officials of government and the third identity card that I want to suggest is the name, rank and number card. Any official of government who has a right to demand information or to enter people's premises should have his own identity card with his name, rank and number on it and should present it when he comes to people's premises. That is not a complicated issue.
	Then we come to another point. It is right and reasonable that those of us who are entitled to benefits after a certain age—retirement age—whether it be the winter fuel allowance or pensions or bus passes or others, should have an identity card that prevents us from having to run around producing other pieces of paper to prove a known fact.
	I do not think that there is any need for a restriction on the different types of card that may be issued, but I have a problem with the register. On most occasions when one presents an identity card, no one will have a reader, so the only method of identification will be the visual information on the front of it. It will matter not what biometric data are on it. In recent readings on the Continent, 30 per cent of the biometric data readings for a face failed to recognise it. I refer back to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, who, when I asked whether the card would have one's sex on it, said that proof of identity would be the photograph. I found in the research that I did recently that almost two out of three women to whom I spoke had changed their hair colour and the shape of their head and recognition was quite difficult. Even when one walks around the Bishops' Bar, I have found it difficult to identify people from the photograph hanging from their neck.
	If people wish to prove their identity—that is where I am coming from—they must have something that they can present that enables people to recognise them or to check who they are. That is not a particularly difficult exercise. I do not intend to press the amendment, but, if we start with the passport and accept that that is the ultimate proof of identity, all other pieces of paper or plastic cards are, effectively, secondary. When I asked the noble Baroness whether I could have everything on my card—I would like everything that is on the identity register to be on my card—she said that I could not. A driving licence is not really proof of identity, but it is accepted by some people as proof of identity. If on your British national identity card you do not have your driving licence data, there is no method of proving with that card that you have the ability or the right to drive, particularly if you are travelling internationally. As your Lordships know, the British driving licence is not really accepted as proof of identity for car hire in many places, because it does not have the secondary piece of paper containing any points that you may have run up through bad behaviour.
	I become more and more confused by this. The Minister says that we can have only one identity card and now we may have two but only in certain circumstances, preferably when we are bisexual or something like that. Can she not admit that we might be able to have all sorts of identity cards that could replace some of the other requirements to prove who we are? When we come to nationality, there is no reason at all why the card should not have certain extra bits on it; for example, the Welsh might have a Welsh card and the Scots a Scots card. There is no difficulty at all. When we come to the private sector, however, the only acceptable proof of identity in the banking sector in many parts of the world tends to be the original of your passport or a certified copy of it. As we have suggested that the identity card will help people with the commercial or private sectors, I would like to know how and where. Ultimately, some of the rules still say, under the banking regulations, "know thy customer". Even more under the new banking legislation, you have a duty to probe and push as far as you can. Those institutions will not have access to the identity register.
	I am not flying kites or chasing hares. I am simply asking what the maximum number of identity cards that we might have in issue is and whether more identity cards will cost more than one. I beg to move.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, maybe we could replace the whole Bill with this clause. If this is about identity cards—it is the Identity Cards Bill—we have got it here. Of course, it is not an identity cards Bill, it is an identity register Bill. However, there seems to be some merit in having the passport office issue these simple identity cards.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I have some sympathy with that. The difficulty is that I cannot accept my noble friend Lord Selsdon's amendment, because I would have to accept the rest of the Bill—and that is the bit that I do not like. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, says, the problem is the register at the foundation of the Bill.
	My noble friend Lord Selsdon has raised some interesting questions, which the Minister needs to answer. The public have not yet thought through how an ID card will look to them. If one is asking for proof of identity, one needs to have some security in looking at an ID card and knowing whether it is likely to be an ID card or not. One will not have a reader, whatever the technological ways of reading it might be; one is going to have to have a visual check. So we need to know what will be on the face of the card. Is it going to look the same in all circumstances in which it may be issued? We come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that the problem is really with the rest of the Bill and the register. This is an identity register Bill, and I therefore look forward to my noble friend Lord Selsdon's Amendment No. 120A.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, in moving his amendment, gave an excellent demonstration of why we needed an identity card because of the multiplicity of uses to which it can properly be put. When we last debated this, I talked about having more than one card if one was an Irish national, for instance, and wanted to have a card that did not have nationality on it. Anyone resident here for three months or more would have an identity card, but it would not identify them as British because it would be held on the basis of residence. So the difference in identity cards was as a result of the group into which the individual who applied for one fell. It is likely, however, that the majority of us would just have the one identity card.
	The noble Lord talked about bisexuals. I think that he was referring to the comments that I made about transsexuals, those who are moving from one gender to another but needed to have the cards because they had not quite transferred their gender and were therefore in a somewhat delicate position between the two.

Lord Selsdon: That was an unfortunate Freudian slip, my Lords, for which I apologise.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I absolutely understood what the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, was getting at.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am completely foxed. What happens to the person in transition between two gender states? What sort of card will they get?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords—I almost said "my Lady", another Freudian slip—it would be possible, if one was moving from one gender to another, to have a card that was originally issued to one in the gender of birth but, as a result of changing gender, to have a second card issued in the gender of designation. Noble Lords will remember the long and complex debates that we had on transsexuals and whether a transsexual was a transsexual if they had not gone through the operation. There are those who will not be able to go through with the operation but will still be entitled to the transgender transference, if I can put it that way. I do not want to revisit those debates. I am sure that noble Lords remember them all too well.
	The information on the face of the cards will, as I think that I have said on a number of occasions, comply with the International Civil Aviation Organisation's standard for travel documents, as must the passport. The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon has made that point on a number of occasions. That compliance is what makes it a travel document, as opposed simply to an identity document. The information on the card will resemble what is on the passport. The final specification will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so Parliament will have the final say on what, precisely, goes on the face of the document. As before, however, I assure the House that the address will not be on the face or the chip of the card as, indeed, the address is not on the body of the passport—as noble Lords will know—although you can put information in the back about people to be notified and matters of that sort.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, that the most significant means of identity is the passport. As noble Lords are aware, passports provide the foundation for our identity scheme proposals. Under our proposed scheme, however, the ID cards will be more than a portable form of British passport. The scheme will cover everybody resident in the UK for more than three months—that is the real distinction between the passport and the ID card scheme. It will therefore include foreign nationals and British nationals who do not hold a passport. It is only by having a scheme that applies to everybody that the full benefits will be realised. As is clear from the statutory purposes in Clause 1, ID cards, backed up by the national identity register, will be more than a government travel document for British citizens. Therefore, in so far as Amendment No. 111 represents the extent of the vision of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, for an identity card scheme in this country, we do not share it.
	I understand the thrust of what the noble Lord says about 80 per cent of people having a passport, which is the primary source of identity. We have a database containing all that information that can, with propriety, be accessed in certain specified circumstances. When we add the biometric information to that system, we will, in essence, have many of the features of the proposed identity card scheme. We will not, however, have the safeguards—the commissioner and the ability to audit what happens, checking on the use to which the card is put—or the universality. We will therefore continue with the current position, where those of affluence tend to have a passport and those who are not affluent and do not travel have to find other means of proving their identity—often their MP, doctor, or some other form. They will find it increasingly difficult so to do. The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, is also right that, in the event of trying to prove one's identity, it is often requested that one produce one's passport. Those who do not have one labour under that disadvantage. I can see why the noble Lord says that the passport is the most profound and useful form if identity. It is, but we therefore feel that it is the foundation stone on which the ID card scheme should be built.
	Subsection (1) of the amendment would codify the position of the passport as a secure and well trusted form of identification document. As I have indicated, the passport is, at present, considered a secure means of proving identity because of the security measures and procedures used in issuing it and the techniques used in its manufacture, which make forgery difficult. Our proposed scheme of identity cards—and, for that matter, the new biometric passports—will be issued with even higher levels of security and certainty.
	I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay says: in essence, before the readers come in, people will use the photographic representation to check. As we become familiar with the nature and form taken by identity cards, being able to recognise that easily will also be of great importance. It is that security and certainty and the ability to verify their continuing validity from the register that will make people trust them as the best proofs of identity, not an assertion in legislation that they should be so.
	We really should lay to rest our fascination with the register. We already have the equivalent of a register for passports. It is a database that holds all information currently held by the Passport Office about the 80 per cent of people in this country who have a passport. We simply do not call it a register.

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I cannot agree with the latter hedging by the Minister. If the passport is the ultimate identity card and thus what I call the "British National Identity Card", which the Minister calls a travel card, and is accepted as proof of identity by all government departments, it might be well be so accepted by anyone else.
	We must separate ourselves, as British nationals, from foreigners. That is not because I am trying to be too simple, but because if we do that, we need not go through all this great expense. The point is that, at present, it would cost only £10 to produce an identity card to go with the passport. As the Minister rightly says, 80 per cent of people in this country hold a passport, yet the proportion is higher among lower ages. In the older groups, only 50 per cent have a passport, as they do not need them and may never travel.
	I do not see why we cannot accept the concept of sticking to what the Minister calls a travel card. Instead of calling it that, we just call it a "British National Identity Card" based on the passport and encourage everybody to go the passport route. As little information will be contained on that identity card, the identity register is a separate issue. It may be needed at some time in future for other purposes than to prove who you are.
	I am not being controversial, but I must also quote the Minister to correct something. On 23 January, she said:
	"I also tried to draw a distinction between the different types of cards that will be available. There will be the standard identity card for British citizens issued alongside a British passport"—
	that is what I call the "British National Identity Card"—
	"That will have on its face certain clear information about the identity of the person et cetera".
	Here we have that spelt out in full:
	"It will be very clear that this is the travel document"—
	I would say: "No, this is the identity card"—
	"There will then be a stand-alone identity card for those who do not want a passport but who want to travel within Europe"—
	which is no identity card but a travel card—
	"Then there will be the plain card, which will not be valid for travel. You will clearly be able to differentiate one from the other. Then there are ID cards which are linked to residence permits and other immigration documents issued to foreign nationals".—[Official Report, 23/1/06; cols. 1009–1010.]
	That seems like lots of cards to me. Maybe it is not, but I suggest that the Minister incorporates in the Bill a requirement that every official of government should have their own identity card, to prove their identity to non-officials. When someone turns up and shows their card, we have no idea whether it is true or a forgery or whatever.
	I will push this no further at present, but I have made a point as strongly as I can. The rest of the Bill—the identity card register—is a complete and utter waste of time and money and causes too much emotional stress. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: moved Amendment No. 111A:
	Before Clause 41, insert the following new clause—
	"PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL OVER STANDARDS AND ADMINISTRATION OF ID CARDS
	(1) Parliament shall have the sole power to decide—
	(a) whether a voluntary or compulsory ID card scheme shall be introduced in the United Kingdom;
	(b) who shall be required to possess an ID card, or shall be issued with an ID card, or be entered in the National Identity Register, in the United Kingdom; and
	(c) the security standards required in any ID card or National Identity Register in the United Kingdom.
	(2) No international body may impose on any United Kingdom citizen the duty to attend or to have attended at any place for the purposes of the issue, or in connection with preparations for the issue, of an ID card and a United Kingdom citizen shall have free passage throughout the United Kingdom and the member states of the European Union without the need to fulfil any such obligation, except as shall have been agreed, or determined, by statute in the United Kingdom.
	(3) No Minister of the Crown may enter into any undertaking within the European Union to introduce an ID card scheme or identity register in the United Kingdom, or propose or agree any common standards in relation to such a scheme, unless and until Royal Assent has been given to this Act or any other statute introduced for that specific purpose."

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, this is the same amendment that my noble friend Lady Anelay moved in Committee on 12 December 2005, reported at cols 1098 to 1099 of Hansard. The debate did not finish until eighteen minutes past midnight, when we were all in a state of some confusion but had been promised a clarifying letter from the Minister. I shall return to that.
	The amendment would give Parliament—the House of Commons and your Lordships' House—sole power over any UK ID card system and prevent the Government from signing us up to any EU system without Parliament's explicit consent. The burden of my song in Committee was that I feared that Parliament had already lost the power to give effect to the amendment, even if it were passed. I pointed out that Title IV of the Treaty establishing the European Community—the TEC—which covers,
	"Visas, Asylum, Immigration and other Policies Related to the Free Movement of Persons"
	was introduced at Amsterdam under unanimity. That means that we could veto measures introduced under it. However, by a unanimous Council decision in December 2004, the voting system on measures introduced under Title IV, except for legal immigration, was changed from unanimity to qualified majority voting, under Article 251 of the treaty.
	I then suggested that work being done in Brussels under the so-called Hague programme indicated that the Commission was moving towards proposing an EU-wide ID system, starting with minimum standards for each member state. For the record, I should mention that I omitted to mention a protocol at the back of the TEC. Protocol 4, on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, was inserted at Amsterdam and gave the UK an opt-out from Title IV—even if the other member states voted unanimously to change its decision-making procedure from unanimity to QMV, which they duly did. However, Article 3 of the protocol gives the UK and Ireland the power to opt in to any proposal under Title IV in which they wish to participate. Any such participation would now be by QMV except for proposals about legal immigration, which remain under unanimity.
	It is here that the plot thickens, in the shape of Council decision 15226/04 of 15 December 2004, a copy of which I shall place in your Lordships' Library. Paragraph (13) of that decision says that,
	"In accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland . . . those Member States"—
	the United Kingdom and Ireland—
	"have notified their wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Decision".
	So, it is pretty clear that we have opted into decision 15226/04, but what does that say? Paragraph (6) says that,
	"the Council is required to act in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251"—
	in other words, qualified majority voting—
	"when adopting, in conformity with the case law of the Court of Justice relating to the choice of legal basis for Community acts, the measures referred to in Article 62—(2)(a)"
	of the TEC. Other articles are mentioned; I do not need to trouble your Lordships with them to show where the labyrinth leads us.
	I trust that it is now clear that the United Kingdom has opted into Council decision 15226/04 and that we are therefore bound to accept any qualified majority vote in the Council for measures brought under Article 62(2) of the TEC. That article, under Title IV, covers,
	"measures on the crossing of the external borders of the Member States which shall establish . . . standards and procedures to be followed by Member States in carrying out checks on persons at such borders".
	It is pretty clear that an EU identity card system could be sanctioned by those words. The Minister may say something along the lines of what she said in Committee: that ID cards are not specifically mentioned as a measure covered under Article 62(2)(a), but the decision I quoted rubs in the fact that the Luxembourg court—that engine of EU integration—will alone rule on the decision's legal justification, as is always the case. When the Government have admitted more than once in Written Answers that Brussels is using Article 308 of the TEC, which sanctions measures only in pursuit of the objectives of the Common Market, as the legal justification for the EU's entire fundamental rights programme, how can they pretend that Article 62(2)(a) could not give rise to an EU ID card system?
	I have two brief, simple questions for the Minister, but before putting them, perhaps I should comment as kindly as I can on her letter to me of 10 January, following our debate on 12 December. In her first paragraph, she claims generically that:
	"There is no question of ID cards being introduced by fiat from Brussels".
	She also says:
	"The introduction of ID cards is entirely a matter for the UK Parliament to decide".
	Noble Lords should note that quotation. The Minister assures us that Parliament will have the final say, not the Government in the secret conclaves of Brussels. I fear that those statements will turn out to be wishful thinking. The Minister then goes on:
	"I should like to respond to what you say about Title IV of the EC treaty. Title IV is primarily concerned with border controls and the entry and residence of third country nationals in the community. It does not provide for the introduction of a European Union ID card".
	True, oh Queen, as such. But my contention is that it is wide enough to do so and that it will.
	The Minister goes on:
	"In addition, the UK is only bound by measures drawn up under Title IV if it opts into them".
	That may be true under the terms of Protocol IV, as I have mentioned, but I trust that I have shown that the UK has indeed opted into the measures to be decided by qualified majority voting under Council Decision 15226/04 and several others. I could quote clauses out of the transport section of the treaty that would do just as well, but let us use that one for the moment.
	So my first question to the Minister is: are the Government saying that Decision 15226/04 could not—even with the eventual support of the Luxembourg court, against whose decision there is no appeal—be used to introduce an EU ID card system under Article 62(2)(a) or other articles in the treaty? If that is their position, I must ask them to explain the treaty basis for it. Why do they believe that that is the position when the treaty appears to say otherwise? Secondly, if the Government support the Minister when she says in her letter that the introduction of ID cards in the UK will be entirely a matter for Parliament to decide, why do they not accept the amendment and particularly subsection (3) thereof. If the Government mean what the Minister said, surely they must undertake that they, the Executive, will not opt in to any future proposal in Brussels that could lead to an EU scheme being imposed on us, if they have not already done so—I fear they have. If the Government will not accept the amendment, will they at least give that undertaking, and if not, why not?
	I am sorry to have spent so much time on this amendment, but I have done so to show how entwined we already are in the tentacles of Brussels on the issue of identity cards, as, indeed, we now are for the majority of our national legislation. Noble Lords will remember that before the last general election, Michael Howard said that in the event of victory the Conservatives would make changes to our systems of dealing with asylum and illegal immigration, only to be told by the EU Commission that he was out of order and that the UK government were no longer free to do so, having ceded control of those areas under Title IV of the TEC and subsequent Council decisions. It is the same picture that we are looking at today.
	Those appear to be the waters through which we are now navigating, and I do not see why this situation should be much different. I do not pretend to have understood the whole picture, which is unusually complex, perhaps deliberately so. But I am reasonably sure of one thing: if we stay in the European Union, the United Kingdom will end up as part of an EU ID card system, controlled eventually by Brussels, and there will be nothing that this Parliament, as opposed to the government of the day, will have been able to do about it. In the mean time, I look forward to the Minister's reply to the questions I have put to her, in the hope that her answers may help to stave off the fate that, I fear, otherwise awaits us. I beg to move.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, one does not have to agree with all the views of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, to be grateful to him for his detailed and tenacious consideration of these complex issues. In the thickets of European law, he is a rare forester. I am as intrigued as he is to know whether the central questions he raised—namely, is the game up and are we now subject to whatever the EU may decide for us vis-à-vis our ID card system?—are right or wrong.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, we should be indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for his research into the possibilities of an ID card being imposed on us by the European Union whether we like it or not. Everything he said is true. We simply have to look at the history of the European Union to know that things do not proceed in huge leaps or jumps, but by ratchet. That is precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has been describing tonight: the EU ratchet. The EU realises that if it jumps and leaps about, it frightens people, but it can do things by stealth because EU decision-making is so complex that people do not understand it. It becomes so difficult that even Members of Parliament in both Houses do not know what is happening and, as it is so complicated, they often do not even read what they are being asked to decide upon, after it has been agreed in Brussels by unanimity or by qualified-majority voting. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is absolutely right in pointing out, yet again, that once Ministers have made a decision in Brussels, and once the 22 nations, by qualified majority, have imposed a directive on the European Union, neither this House, the House of Commons, nor anybody else has any power to change that. It has to be accepted whether we like it or not. That is why we must be doubly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, for bringing this before us so that we can make it absolutely clear to the House that if the Government go along the lines that he has outlined, and agree or have it imposed on them by a qualified majority vote, neither the House of Commons nor this House will be able to do anything about it.
	I believe that the Government already intend that there should be an EU identity card. It will be a standard card, and the biometrics and the other information that will be on it will eventually be dictated by the European Union, probably by a qualified majority vote. I say that because only last year the Home Secretary told the Home Affairs Committee that he looked forward to the day when there would be a usable EU identity card. He did not say that it would be compulsory, but he said that it would be used throughout the European Union.
	The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is right to be suspicious, as is this House. The House of Commons should also be suspicious, because the matter, I believe, has already been secretly decided, and this Bill is part of the stealth towards an eventual European Union identity card.
	I know that the noble Baroness and her colleague the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will strenuously deny that that will happen, but in my time in both Houses of Parliament I have heard so many denials that have eventually proved to be completely and utterly misguided and wrong that I shall continue to be suspicious of whatever reply I receive from the noble Baroness, because I believe that it has already been decided that we shall have an EU identity card eventually.

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, as the noble Lords, Lord Pearson and Lord Stoddart, know, all passports in Europe at the moment have "European Union" on the front cover and the inside cover in 12 languages. The problem now is in how many other languages it will be. We will have sovereignty over our own passports. The problem is not the passport, but the identity register.
	I have already received representations from Italy, France and Germany opposing wholeheartedly the full flat-out gallop at which we are going in this direction, way ahead of anyone else. The Germans do not like it at all and have suggested that the Commission may get hold of this idea before long, and in the interests of something else ask for an exchange of information from the identity register.
	This country has a good passport office. It went through a bad time for a while, but it is probably the best in the world at the moment. There is a certain friendliness and a welcoming approach among our immigration officers. Perhaps they have a new instruction to be friendly. There are differences, however. I return to Germany, which has the biggest single population—80 million or so—in the EU. As noble Lords may be aware, passports in Germany are issued with identity cards by the Oberbürgermeister—the mayor. It is a regional and a local activity; it is not centralised. Part of the Germans' fear is that information will be centralised, and they will strongly oppose any activity of the sort that might happen in Brussels.
	I must not refer to my Italian friends as wops, because I have done that before. Noble Lords will be fully aware that "wop" is not an insulting word. It was introduced when we invaded Italy in the Second World War when the fascisti threw away their papers. They were named "without papers"—they were wops. A great advantage of our democracy is that we are not frightened about being without papers. We may be wops, but we are who we are, and long may we remain so.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, it may benefit the House and help the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Pearson, if, in the context of this amendment, I mention something that I was going to raise later. Noble Lords will be aware of the recent ministerial decision, approved unanimously at an EU conference in Manchester last year, setting out four "ambitious targets" for European e-government by 2010. Item four of those targets calls on member states to work towards,
	"the mutual recognition of national electronic identities by testing, piloting and implementing suitable technologies and methods".
	It could be interpreted that under the UK presidency we have signed up for a pan-European ID card by 2010.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I shall be very brief as it has all been said. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, for trying to lead us through this labyrinth of complexities. To cut to the chase, the question is that put by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. We want assurance on whether the game is up and what further steps, if any, must be taken before we enter a Europe-wide identity cards scheme. As my noble friend said, our previous debate continued late into the night and into the morning. We have subsequently had a chance to look further at what the Minister said. I hope that she can respond particularly with regard to the fact that my noble friend was unable to refer to the protocol the last time. I suspect that she will express the same objective but I hope that she can give us a further explanation.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, for outlining with his usual clarity why he feels that there should be anxiety—nay, alarm—about the current position. I am not at all surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, says that it does not really matter what we say, he will never be reassured anyway. With that as a background, I shall clarify the position as best I can.
	The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, probably already knows the answers that I will give, but I will give them for the record. When the noble Lord last spoke on this matter, he focused on the treaties of Amsterdam and Nice. His comments in that regard were coloured a little by his failure to differentiate between the arrangements proposed in the constitution, which was not proceeded with, and the prevailing situation.
	Amendment No. 111A seeks to state in primary legislation that it is for Parliament to decide whether an identity card scheme, be it voluntary or compulsory, should be introduced into the UK. The amendment makes similar statements on who should be required to possess an ID card and the security standards required for both the ID card and the register.
	I hardly need to say it, but Parliament is sovereign. Unless and until primary legislation concerning ID cards is brought before this Parliament, there will be no ID cards scheme in the United Kingdom. This Bill is that primary legislation. We have debates on whether the scheme should be compulsory or voluntary, but there is no debate that this Bill will bring in the ID cards scheme if this Parliament determines that that should occur. It is strange and, if I may respectfully say so, unnecessary to state in a Bill that is before Parliament the fact that Parliament is sovereign over the subject matter to which the Bill relates.
	Although Parliament will prescribe, by way of affirmative order, the information to be recorded on ID cards and the format of that information, the security standards of ID cards and of the register will not be set out in legislation. It would be inappropriate to release details of the security standards required for ID cards or the register into the public domain. I hope that noble Lords will concur with the reasons for that. To do so may compromise the future security and integrity of the register itself, giving potential wrongdoers a good place to start when looking for ways to attack the register.
	Subsection (2) of the amendment seeks to prevent any international body imposing conditions on any UK citizen to attend any place for the purpose of the issue of an identity card unless this has been agreed to by a UK statute. Subsection (3) of the amendment seeks to prevent any Minister entering into an undertaking with the EU to introduce an ID card scheme in the UK, or agreeing any common standards in relation to such a scheme, unless Royal Assent has been given to the Identity Cards Bill or any other statute for that specific purpose.
	As I stated on previous occasions, and more recently in my letter of 10 January—which has been quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch—the Government's position is that there is no question of identity cards being introduced by fiat from Brussels. We very much doubt, as the noble Lord has set out from my letter, that the treaties could provide a legal basis for so doing. Even if—which once again we doubt—it could be argued that Title 4 could provide a treaty base, the United Kingdom would be bound by such a measure only if it opted into it. Notwithstanding what the noble Lord has said in relation to that, I think that even he accepts that we would have to opt in in order for it to apply. He, of course, says that we may be minded at some stage to do so. But there is no indication of that and, unless and until we opt in, we would not be so bound. In any event, in so far as there is any scope for making such arguments, restating parliamentary sovereignty in the Bill does not change the position. I hope that I have been able to assure noble Lords about that.
	Mention has been made of the EU measures on ID cards which were entered into in December. The conclusion adopted at the Justice and Home Affairs Council was an intergovernmental measure which is not legally binding. It sets out some common principles which all member states agreed were important for the security and issuance of ID cards. Noble Lords will know, as the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, has made clear, that 22 countries in the EU currently have ID cards. Their citizens use those ID cards to come to this country. It is in our interests to make sure that the provisions which apply to ID cards are secure and safe for those who come to this country because we have to rely on the integrity of their documents because they are the ones they choose to use.
	This was requested by the Hague programme and the July 2005 Justice and Home Affairs Council because national ID cards are acknowledged to be the least secure of the identity and travel documents which are commonly used in the EU. It is in the interests of all of us that ID cards are as secure as possible. The council conclusions do not and cannot impose any obligation on states to introduce ID cards if they do not already have them. That is the case, for instance, in Latvia, Denmark and Ireland as well as the United Kingdom.
	I absolutely understand the concerns of the noble Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Stoddart—who remain resolutely Euro sceptic—but I have to tell your Lordships, as clearly as I can, that they are unfounded. It will be this Parliament which determines whether ID cards will be introduced; it will be this Parliament which decides the conditions which apply; and it will be this Parliament which says yea or nay to their introduction—and no other.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, and before I reply and decide what to do with the amendment, can she therefore give the House a clear assurance that Her Majesty's Government have not opted—and will never opt—into any measure which could lead to the United Kingdom being included in any EU identity card system? I ask her that very simple question.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I know the noble Lord is a wily fox who has been trying to lead poor Ministers astray, to bind their governments in a way that is improper, for many years. But I am, unfortunately, old enough to recognise the ploy when I see it. It is a trap into which I do not intend to fall.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in that case, I am sure that when it comes to read Hansard with attention and enthusiasm—as it undoubtedly will—the whole House will find that reply disappointing.
	The Minister suggested that I was confused between what would have been the situation under the proposed EU constitution, had it been adopted—to which the Government have signed-up but have not brought into law—and the current arrangements. I should tell the noble Baroness that I am not confused about that. I am much clearer about the position of the constitution than I am about the detail of this amendment. I have based my remarks on the current arrangement, as I said on the previous occasion, which is the TEC as amended by various treaties, ending with the Treaty of Nice.
	Nor was I saying to the Minister that I was worried only about what would happen if the Government decided in future to opt in to a measure which could give rise to us being dragged into an EU identity card system. I am saying that, but my own position is that I think we have already gone too far, especially if the Luxembourg court eventually supports Brussels in the adoption of an EU card system—which, of course, it will. Brussels has never taken a decision which reverses the ratchet to which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred.
	It would be helpful if we were all to study the detail of what has been said. I think it possible that I will have to come back with the amendment at Third Reading. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 41 [Orders and regulations]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: moved Amendments Nos. 112 to 114:
	Page 35, line 26, leave out from beginning to "be" in line 27 and insert—
	"(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations which—
	(a) contain provisions that the Secretary of State is authorised to make by this Act, and
	(b) are not regulations a draft of which is required to have been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House,
	shall"
	Page 35, line 29, leave out "Subject to subsection (8),"
	Page 35, line 30, after "regulations" insert "(other than the power of the Secretary of State to make an order under section 45(3))"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: moved Amendment No. 114A:
	Page 35, line 35, at end insert "; and
	(d) to make special provision (including exemption) for those who by reason of disability or other good reason may be unable to do or disadvantaged in doing what otherwise may be required of them under any such order or regulation."

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, Amendment No. 114A seeks to amend Clause 41, which deals with the orders and regulations to be passed under the Bill. The amendment would add paragraph (d) to Clause 41(4). The wording of the amendment would make it abundantly clear that those with any kind of disability or disadvantage may be differently treated under the provisions of the Bill.
	I am well aware that Clause 41(4) already allows for the Secretary of State, or whoever else is making the regulations and orders, to make different provisions for different cases. Furthermore, in one of the subsections, the clause makes allowance for exemptions to be made with regard to such regulations or orders. This is a belt and braces amendment. It is advanced at the behest of a number of the disability NGOs, which want to be absolutely clear beyond peradventure that their members and beneficiaries will be treated fairly and justly. I am thinking, for example, of Clause 5(5), which will require citizens to attend at a certain place or time; to have fingerprints or other biometric information taken and recorded; to allow themselves to be photographed and so on. That is one of the very many requirements that the Bill places on citizens. No explanation is required to understand that some groups will be extremely anxious about what they might be required to do. I will not press the amendment. I accept that on one reading of Clause 41(4) it is wholly superfluous, and I hope that the Minister can say with untrammelled certainty that it is wholly superfluous, whereupon that will be the end of it. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 114A to which I have added my name. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for tabling it. It was a very crafty move to have this debate at this stage of the Bill, particularly for me, as it means that I can ask questions that were central to my Amendment No. 45 that I did not move on day two of Report because of time considerations. That is flannel for saying that I was trying to get to a vote at the right time.
	I did not move the amendment then. I apologised to the Royal National Institute for the Blind and said that I would ensure that I found a way of raising the issues, if only by bringing the matter back on Third Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has made sure that I do not need to go to Third Reading but can dispose of matters today. I have, therefore, given advance notice of my questions to the Government in the hope that all will be resolved.
	In Committee on 12 December (at cols. 1052 to 1058 of the Official Report) I signalled my concern about the burdens that could be imposed on disabled and vulnerable people as a result of the process that they will have to follow and the Clause 5 issues, to which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, referred—being enrolled on the national identity register. I said that I would refer back to the RNIB to ask whether the Minister's response had fully satisfied it on its concerns. I did just that, but the institute felt that it would be helpful if the Minister could give some further clarification.
	First, will the Minister establish who is eligible for enrolment in the ID cards scheme at home or through a mobile enrolment centre as a result of being unable to travel independently to an enrolment centre? In Committee on 12 December (at col. 1055 of the Official Report) the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, said that disabled and older people who were unable because of their impairment to travel to an enrolment centre could enrol for the ID cards scheme through a home visit or a mobile enrolment centre.
	RNIB said that that was a welcome statement of the general provision that the Government envisage as being necessary to meet the needs of older and disabled people who are unable to travel independently to an enrolment centre. However, the Minister also stated that,
	"it is planned that no person should have to travel any further than an hour from their home . . . This approach is in line with existing policy for similar requirements; for example, appointments for the Department for Work and Pensions. Additionally, for remote communities and those with mobility problems, mobile enrolment solutions as well as home visits are being considered".—[Official Report, 12/12/05; col. 1032.]
	I am concerned that an hour represents a significant length of journey, especially for an older or disabled person. Therefore, I welcome any additional detail that the Minister can give regarding whether the Government plan to establish eligibility criteria for home or mobile registration, setting out who will qualify for those services, which he said are being considered for older and disabled people. For example, will eligibility for those registration options be restricted to those disabled people who claim disability living allowance or attendance allowance, or will older and disabled people be able to request a home registration appointment without having to produce evidence that they have an impairment that makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult to travel up to an hour to a registration centre? If eligibility criteria are to be used in determining who will qualify for home or mobile registration, we are keen to know what those criteria will be, in case they unreasonably restrict assistance and force some older or disabled people to travel up to an hour to an enrolment centre.
	Because these are somewhat detailed issues, I gave advance notice. I hope that the Minister can clarify matters today.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for raising these issues, as it gives me the opportunity to confirm that these are just the sort of issues that will be included in secondary legislation.
	I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is right in his interpretation of Clause 41(4). I confirm that his amendment is entirely superfluous. The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to make exemptions in the cases to which he alluded.
	Officials from the ID cards programme met the RNIB on 2 December. The meeting was extremely productive, as ever, and the RNIB agreed to send the ID cards team its findings on how its members coped with the roll out of chip and pin to further understand the needs of disabled users of the ID card scheme. The next meeting with the RNIB is planned for March/April this year, and we intend to continue with this valuable dialogue both on policy and the technical side of matters.
	The ID cards programme will continue to engage with special interest groups, including those representing race, faith and trans-gender groups, and to further investigate the needs of disabled people. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked for specific information. Although she gave advance notice, for which I am grateful, I am not in a position to give specific details, as it is too early in the development of precise exemptions, in particular, and eligibility for home and mobile enrolment centres. I take the point about the hour-long journey. My journey takes me 50 minutes and I travel some 55 to 60 miles, so I understand the point that is being made. We shall have to give some flexible consideration to that.
	The issues raised by the noble Baroness are precisely the sort that we have to discuss with the representative groups—in particular, those with disabilities. We intend to do that. Today's dialogue has been extremely valuable. Decisions have not yet been made and the special needs interest group will, I am sure, provide advice and feedback to the programme team on the very issues that the noble Baroness has raised. If I can, I will ensure that we will provide some more information before the Bill moves to another place. However, that may be a tall order because these are difficult and complex issues on which we wish to have detailed discussions with those who have a particular interest. More than that I cannot really say, but your Lordships can rest assured that we are extremely sympathetic with regard to these matters and are concerned to get them right.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's reply and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is equally satisfied because these matters affect a great many people. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 115:
	Page 36, line 15, leave out subsection (8).
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 43 [General interpretation]:
	[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: moved manuscript Amendment No. 116A:
	Page 36, line 43, at end insert—
	( ) ""consent" in section 14 shall mean a singular or continuing written consent, provided in the latter case that it shall not have been in writing withdrawn;"

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, Amendment No. 116A adds to the definition clause, Clause 43, a definition of the word "consent", referring to its use in Clause 14. The clause, which is headed:
	"Provision of information for verification or otherwise with consent",
	will allow the Secretary of State to provide a wide range of private sector bodies in due course with information on the register with the consent or authority of the citizen concerned.
	I confess at once that the amendment would be more happily placed in Clause 14 but, given the stage we are at, this was the only way I could see of getting the matter dealt with. The point of defining consent, as the amendment does, is to deal with the debate we had on a previous amendment of mine to which the Government's response was that they will allow only one consent at a time for information to be provided from an individual's entry in the register. Bank X, Y or Z could have a specific request to check the identity of customer Smith, and that would be it. The consent would be for one single application by the bank to the Secretary of State.
	The language of Clause 14 is not confined to the possibility of a single consent, hence a single application for information. What we have here is the difference between the language of the statute and the policy, as the Government explained it earlier. I am perfectly content, as always, to accept statements of government policy for so long as they are government policy, but that may not be for too long and will certainly not bind a successor. Therefore, Clause 14(1) needs to provide for the possibility of a continuing written consent. I should be able to say to my bank, "You can apply at any time, or until further notice, to my entry on the register to verify this or that". The language of the statute would permit that, and this amendment makes that plain. That, in turn, leads to the addition to my definition, which says, in effect, that that consent can be in writing withdrawn. I want those issues to be clearly on the face of the Bill.
	I have a question for the noble Lord and I perfectly understand if he cannot give me an answer tonight. It is about the difference between Clause 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(b). I am wholly unclear about the difference between me, a citizen, giving my bank "authority" to request information and me, a citizen, giving my bank "consent" to request information. If, in giving his reply to the amendment, the noble Lord could clarify that point, he would be doing a service to the House and to those who have to understand the Bill hereafter. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I may or may not be able to give the noble Lord an answer to his last question; studying the clause I may pray in aid that I might have to drop him a note, but we shall see. Amendment No. 116A would insert into the general interpretation of the Bill a definition of consent in relation to Clause 14. That would have the effect that all consent must be written and that consent can be singular—on one occasion only—or continuing. Continuing consent may be cancelled, which would also have to be carried out in writing.
	It is our intention that, if not all, the majority of checks under Clause 14 should be carried out on a singular basis—that is, consent is given for a check on any one occasion. We do not wish that consent to have to be expressed in writing, as that would be bureaucratic and, in our view, cumbersome. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is against things that are cumbersome, and he certainly does not like much about bureaucracy. The provision could have the effect of forcing a person to fill in a form every time—more paper—rather than simply handing over his or her card and asking or agreeing that it be checked.
	On continuing consent I thank the noble Lord for raising an interesting point. On the one hand there might be dangers in allowing for continuing consent, but one could argue on the other hand that there would be benefits to cardholders, because it would be easier. I have the view that perhaps checking occasionally is a good thing and that continuing consent runs against that. It is a difficult point on balance. As the noble Lord has raised the matter when he has, we are content to give it some further thought, although I am not going to promise anything.
	The noble Lord asked about authority and consent. A response has been provided and I shall endeavour to enlighten him. I accept that there may be some overlap between authority and consent, but authority is more to cover a person acting on behalf of an individual; for example, a relative or someone with power of attorney. Consent is more for an application made by a third party with the agreement of the individual concerned. Those are the two different instances in which the terminology as it is explained to me has been set out in the Bill.
	No doubt the noble Lord will want to read that explanation carefully and I think I will too.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, as always I am grateful to the Minister and I am sorry that I had to raise that nasty question. It sounds to me as though authority is more authoritative. I will read; I do not think that that makes me a happy legislator and maybe in the course of considering whether an amendment is required in respect of continuing consent something can be done to make that a little less opaque. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendments Nos. 117 and 118:
	Page 37, line 27, after "resides"" insert "and cognate expressions"
	Page 37, line 30, leave out from "State" to end of line 31.
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 119 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 120:
	Page 38, line 10, leave out paragraph (e) and insert—
	"(e) the acceptance or acknowledgment of the conduct of an individual as compliance by that individual with a requirement imposed on him by or under an enactment, or the receipt of any notification or information provided by an individual for the purpose of complying with such a requirement."

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the amendment is intended to respond to concerns about the precise drafting of the Bill that were raised at an earlier stage. I recall in particular that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who is at the moment not in his seat, argued at Second Reading that the definition of public services was too wide. We have considered the matter and we are persuaded that the existing wording of paragraph (e) in Clause 43(2), the subsection that defines public services, is potentially wider than we had intended. The current wording in paragraph (e) is,
	"treating an individual as having complied with a requirement imposed on him by or under any enactment".
	We accept that that definition could be interpreted more widely than we had intended and might be read as deeming someone to have complied with a legal requirement when he has not in fact done so. In these cases we need to be able to deal with where, for example, it would be a requirement for individuals to attend a public office to identify themselves. In such circumstances the service could be much wider than what might easily be regarded as a provisional service; for example, an offender who has to report to a police station as a condition of bail or as a condition imposed on certain sex offenders.
	Once identity cards are introduced, and especially when, as we intend, they become compulsory, reporting in such circumstances would seem a clear instance of when an individual could expect to be asked to produce an ID card. The new form of words in Amendment No. 120 is longer, but it is more precise and less open-ended than the existing wording. The main point is that it is now sufficient for the purpose of ensuring that the definition of "public service" covers the circumstances where reporting conditions have been imposed. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 45 [Short title, repeals, commencement, transitory provision and extent]:

Lord Selsdon: moved Amendment No. 120A:
	Page 39, line 15, leave out "Cards" and insert "Register"

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, this is probably an extraordinarily simple amendment, but it has an ulterior motive that is absolutely clear. I want to try to get us back on the right track. Identity cards for some purposes are a good thing. If that were made clear, life might be a little bit easier. But the identity register, if it is not correctly understood and correctly produced to the nation, is a bad thing. If you mix good with bad, you get something indifferent. So my proposal is that this Bill, as I suggested on 15 November and other noble Lords suggested at various times during its passage, should not be known as the Identity Cards Bill, but simply as the Identity Register Bill. Whether that register will prove to be a good thing over time is another matter, but one of the difficulties that we have had during the passage of this Bill is in distinguishing between compulsory and voluntary. If we pursued the voluntary objective, we would find much more support than we do at the moment with the fear of a register. This fear is more international than national. Other countries are seen not to have the same obligations as us.
	I therefore suggest to the Minister and her colleagues that if they simply change "cards" to "register" in the Title of the Bill, it would be more accurate. In order to be sure about this, I rang one of my old English dons and asked whether he would be kind enough to read it through. In my university days, we would often be asked to précis large texts, sometimes to not more than a quarter of their original length, and sometimes to only three words. This Bill would be better if it was known as the Identity Register Bill rather than the Identity Cards Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am an inadequate replacement for the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. Perhaps I may pay tribute to him at the end of this Report stage for his indefatigable work on the Bill. He has pursued the Government into all sorts of labyrinthine mechanisms during its passage, almost accepting its principle. I couple that with my admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the Ministers, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for their work.
	I am ultimately unconvinced by the basic principle of this Bill. This amendment echoes the one that I moved at the beginning of Committee which would have replaced the national identity register with a national surveillance register. That is what this Bill is all about. If one looks at the index to the various sections, one sees that few entries refer to the identity card as such, and that almost all of them are concerned with the register, access to it, the information that is stored on it and the information that comes out of it.
	It is a grossly intrusive Bill which will cost an awful lot of money and eventually will not be successful. I wait to see it fail.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I was intrigued that my noble friend seemed able to find a new way of trying to alter the Title of a Bill as I was aware that one was unable, by ordinary amendments, to change the Title itself. The noble Lord has delivered an opportunity to the Government to accept that the purpose of the Bill is indeed a national identity register. He delivered his explanation with admirable brevity. He is seeking to make sure that the Bill does what it says on the tin: it is all about a register.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind invitation. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, although salutations of that sort do not normally come at this stage. But I welcome them gratefully from the noble Lord. The short answer to "the Identity Cards Bill" is that that is how the public generally see it. It is about identity cards. I hear, of course, what the noble Lord says, that the register is of importance. I do not disagree with him. But the primary importance remains as described on the tin: the Identity Cards Bill. Therefore, as inviting as his invitation is to dance, on this occasion I have to decline.

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I am sorry, I am totally tone-deaf and I cannot really dance. But I did win the dancing prize for waltz at my prep school with Francis Woodhouse, who could only go backwards and I could only go forwards. Taking that as a guide, and listening to what has been said, I cannot agree with the noble Baroness that this is about identity cards that everybody wants. The Government have not presented things quite as clearly as they should and I would like to test the opinion of the House, even if there are only one or two people who want to vote for it. There is a point of principle here. If you believe that the description of something is wrong, you should point it out. The description of this Bill, as it is now, is wrong. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 120A) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 71

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Baroness Noakes: moved Amendment No. 121:
	Page 39, line 18, at beginning insert "Subject to section (Commencement: report on costs and benefits),"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Northesk: moved Amendment No. 121A:
	Page 39, line 18, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (3A),"

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 121A, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 122A. The Government Front Bench will be only too well aware of my habit of seeking to debate what may appear to be arcane issues. Indeed, the Minister made oblique reference to this earlier in proceedings. Be that as it may, the technical standards directives appear to be relevant here. Helpfully, TRIS—the acronym for the technical regulations information system of the Enterprise Directorate-General of the European Commission—publishes an idiot's guide to the procedure to be adopted in respect of draft technical regulations concerning information society services. This outlines a series of tests to be carried out on a member state's draft legislative proposals, to see if they should be notified to the Commission. By my interpretation, the Bill satisfies these.
	Here, I should once again express my gratitude to the Minister for her commentary on the point in her letter of 11 January. I do not dispute that Directive 98/34/EC, as she says,
	"is aimed at barriers to trade which result from technical regulations relating to products".
	That said, I wonder if the noble Baroness has fully taken on board the effect of the amending directive, 94/98/EC, which adds "information society services" to the scope of the procedure. Crucially, albeit that the Bill is substantially an enabling measure, in its first phase it gives effect to,
	"an information society service, that is to say any service normally provided for a remuneration at a distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a recipient of services".
	On the face of it, therefore, the Bill should be notified to the Commission.
	I doubt that the Government will share my view. With that in mind, and in the spirit of helpfulness, I propose to advance what might be a more persuasive justification for the amendment. The Government have been keen to argue that their proposals are not unique and that, in fact, there is a pan-European if not global move towards the establishment of biometric standards of identity verification. That raises the serious issue of the extent to which our UK identity system will be interoperable and compatible with equivalent arrangements elsewhere in the world. For my part, I would not favour that acting as a precursor for routine data sharing between countries; that would be unacceptable. But in respect of law enforcement, and given the global nature of terrorism, built-in interoperability and compatibility would be beneficial.
	The Government might seek to argue that that is indeed the intention of their proposals for passports and that the trend is towards international standardisation, but passport regimes around the world are being developed in a piecemeal fashion. At least in part, that is a function of the ICAO's standard. The LSE report observes:
	"In attempting to accommodate flexibility for the varying demands of the member states of the ICAO working groups, the ICAO subverted its primary goal of interoperability".
	Nor is the supposed EU standard being rolled out on a consistent basis. My noble friend Lord Selsdon alluded to that last week. For example, Denmark has indeed implemented biometric passports but, in contrast to the scheme envisaged here, the biometric is limited to a digital photograph and is stored on a chip in the passport rather than on a central register.
	The pan-European context here is particularly important. We have already debated the substance of this matter under the umbrella of Amendment No. 111A. In that context, I merely say that if I am uncomfortable about the scheme proposed in this Bill, I am even less enamoured of a system devised for the whole EU. Nevertheless, that would seem to be what we are committed to by virtue of the ministerial decision. That being so, it is incumbent on the Government to make use of the technical standards procedure to guarantee appropriate levels of mutuality and interoperability between this scheme and those of our European partners.
	The global context is equally pertinent. Here it is interesting to note that Cal Slemp, vice-president and global leader for security and privacy services at IBM Global Services, has suggested that there is a requirement for wider international co-operation and a common language and standards in respect of IAM—that is, identity and access management. In commenting about the current state of play, he says that,
	"we've got inconsistent and incomplete implementation and also no standard approach to the future nor a target to shoot at".
	Yet the Bill is silent on that point—or, rather, it appears to assume that it is appropriate that the scheme be developed in isolation from what is happening elsewhere in the world, let alone on our own doorstep in Europe. That is all the more reason for the Bill to be subject to the technical standards procedure as a means of ensuring consistency of approach to a European level and furthering deeper standardisation globally. After all, that is the stated purpose of the notification process: it seeks,
	"to provide a stable, transparent and consistent framework",
	for,
	"national legislative initiatives specifically concerning information society services".
	I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, for drawing the European Union directive on technical standards to my attention a second time. The amendments under consideration now were proposed but not moved in Committee and I commented on their substance when I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, on 11 January. Therefore, I am pleased to provide a fuller answer now.
	We do not consider that the directive is relevant to the Bill now under consideration. It is intended to promote the smooth functioning of the internal market, as the noble Earl knows, and relates to national initiatives for the establishment of technical standards or regulations. The Bill sets out no such standards.
	I am sure your Lordships are aware that Article 1(9) of the directive specifically excludes public procurement tender specifications. The identity cards programme is currently engaged in preparations for the public procurement exercise that will be carried out according to the relevant European Union requirements for procurement. It is possible that some of the detailed secondary legislation to be drawn up during the implementation of the scheme may engage the provisions of the directive, which is something that we shall examine carefully. However, should that be the case, I am happy—delighted, I should say—to assure the noble Earl that the due process required by the directive will be complied with. For those reasons, I hope that he will feel content to withdraw his amendment.

The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I am conscious that this is our last amendment to debate on the Bill today and that the House wishes to move on to other business. I shall further consider the Government's position and reflect on how I might wish to develop the matter once I have had the opportunity to study the Official Report. At the moment I have no wish to protract our proceedings, and therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Noakes: moved Amendment No. 122:
	Page 39, line 18, after "section" insert ", section (Commencement: report on costs and benefits),"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 122A not moved.]

Baroness Noakes: moved Amendment No. 123:
	After Clause 45, insert the following new clause—
	"COMMENCEMENT: REPORT ON COSTS AND BENEFITS
	(1) No provision of this Act, except sections 38, 39, 45 and this section, shall be brought into force until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report in accordance with subsection (2) and that report has been approved by the House of Commons.
	(2) The report shall contain—
	(a) a detailed estimate of the revenue and capital costs arising from this Act (the "cost estimate"); and
	(b) a statement of the expected benefits of this Act.
	(3) The cost estimate shall cover costs incurred by the bodies specified in subsection (6) and shall comprise—
	(a) a statement in the format of resource accounts as defined in the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (c. 20);
	(b) a statement of cash expenditures;
	(c) a statement setting out the material assumptions that have been made in preparing the cost estimate.
	(4) The cost estimate shall include—
	(a) the actual costs incurred in the period from 26th April 2004 to the date to which the cost estimate is prepared; and
	(b) the costs that are estimated to be incurred during a period of 10 years after the date to which the estimate is prepared or such longer future period as shall be determined by the Secretary of State.
	(5) The cost estimate shall be analysed into each of the financial years ending 31st March covered by the cost estimate.
	(6) The bodies referred to in subsection (3) are—
	(a) all Government departments or agencies;
	(b) any other person who carries out functions under this Act;
	and for the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that "Government departments or agencies" includes any Northern Ireland department and the National Assembly for Wales.
	(7) The cost estimate shall be examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General who shall prepare a report on it and shall lay the report before Parliament."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill

Report received.

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Fookes) in the Chair.]
	Clause 2 [General purpose]:

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 111:
	Page 2, line 7, leave out from "purpose" to end of line 8 and insert "under this Part includes"

Baroness Byford: We move into the night-time shift. As the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms is in his place, perhaps I may say on behalf of other colleagues that this is very unsatisfactory. I know the noble Lord will agree. We realise that there are difficulties in timetabling, but this has happened two days running, and to start at quarter to nine at night is not helpful at all.

Lord Grocott: For the sake of accuracy, we did not start at quarter to nine on the first day. As the noble Baroness will recall, there were delays on the first day, but what will appear in Hansard, unless I correct it, will suggest that we started at quarter to nine on both days, which she will acknowledge is incorrect. While I am on my feet, I am sure she will also acknowledge that it is not entirely within my control or anyone else's how long debates take.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for coming back. I think it was about seven o'clock that night. It was certainly late when we started. I cannot remember; it is a minor point. We had virtually three hours' work.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: As I was partly responsible for the later business that was intended to last 45 minutes and lasted an hour and three-quarters, I have the clearest recollection that we started before five and finished at quarter past eight.

Baroness Byford: I apologise to both gentlemen. We had a three-and-a-half-hour break.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I agree with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, about the unsatisfactory timing. I understand that the length of debates is not always within the Government's control. However, through the usual channels, they can control when matters are timetabled. I believe I am correct in saying that for two more Committee days this Bill is timetabled after other Bills. It is really unsatisfactory for the flow of the Bill in Committee to have only an hour and a quarter before we stop again. It is difficult to get into the flow if this is how we are to deal with it every day. I want to register the opinion of those on these Benches in that respect. I also want to put on record that, when a Bill is pushed further and further back and points take a long time, noble Lords want to make substantial contributions at Committee stage and question the Minister, and there is a tendency to feel that they should hurry because of time constraints. That is not acceptable at Committee stage.

Lord Carter: If the Bill had been dealt with in Grand Committee, as I believe it should have been, none of those problems would have arisen.

Baroness Byford: I take that point, but there are quite a few noble Lords sitting on the Benches. I believe that last time we debated the Bill there were about 20 noble Lords present.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: There were 40 noble Lords.

Baroness Byford: To put 40 noble Lords in the Moses Room is not an ideal situation. That is enough. We are moving more into the twilight hours. Let us begin.
	Amendment No. 111 is a probing amendment. It is based on what we see as a potential conflict between the purpose given to Natural England and the remit of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. On page 2, Natural England is given a general purpose which is then expanded to include five aims. Those aims are not ranked explicitly, but they seem to have some sort of logical progression in descending order of gravity. I know we debated this matter at a previous stage. The first aim has two distinct parts: to promote nature conservation and to protect biodiversity. They are not the same thing, but the implication is that they are to run side by side.
	On page 11 of the Bill, Natural England is classified as one of the UK conservation bodies, each of which, in conjunction with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, is then charged with duties relating to nature conservation and to fostering the understanding of nature conservation. In discharging their duties, each party must have regard to ecological changes and to sustainable development.
	There is no reference there to protecting biodiversity and, we believe, that having regard to,
	"actual or possible ecological changes",
	is weaker than the wording of the aim. The danger of conflict is made worse by the fact that the aim is not part of the Bill for the remaining UK countries and there is no guarantee that any of them will adopt it. In such cases we suggest that there is a finite risk that English Nature's stance in the JNCC may, from time to time, be at odds with its partners and, we believe, unnecessarily so. Our proposal would confine Natural England's nature conservation duties to those specified under the terms of the JNCC. Perhaps the Minister will tell us who is top dog—I use that expression as I cannot think of a better one. Which is the most important, the JNCC or Natural England? I beg to move.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I support my noble friend's amendment. It makes more sense for the general purposes of Natural England, if that is its title. I doubt whether it should be and I hope that we may do something about it at a later stage of the Bill. More importantly, the general purposes outlined in this clause are, in my view, deficient. Amendment No. 112, which follows this amendment in the Marshalled List, was debated a few evenings ago. It seems to me that this amendment is helpful and well designed. It certainly merits support.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: This group of amendments is another example of the fact that this clause is not drafted satisfactorily. Certainly, we on these Benches have considerable concerns over the phrase "promoting nature conservation and protecting biodiversity" in Clause 2(1)(a) The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said that they were not the same thing. I do not believe that they are. The Minister no doubt has a definition of each.
	I recall that, on the previous Committee day, we were discussing the parallels between Natural England and the JNCC in terms of sustainable development and those duties. The Minister said that they do not have exactly the same duties and, therefore, the same words need not apply to each. Our amendment is designed to focus the duty of Natural England more accurately on biodiversity. Although the Minister may have a satisfactory definition for it, "nature conservation" is a fairly misunderstood and sloppy term compared with the wording suggested in our amendment.

Earl Peel: I shall speak to Amendment No. 116, which stands in my name and is grouped with Amendment No. 111.
	Inadvertently, I failed to declare an interest when I first spoke in Committee the other day. I own land in the north of England, mostly moorland and mostly subject to agricultural tenancies.
	I apologise if it will take a little longer at this late hour, but I need to explain to your Lordships exactly what I am trying to achieve. Amendment No. 116 would put a statutory obligation on Natural England to address the UK's obligations on the sustainable use of natural resources under the 1992 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. I am sure the Minister will point out that, under Clause 40, there is an obligation for government departments to have regard to the convention. Clearly, that is not the same as having a statutory obligation to abide by it. If Natural England is to wholeheartedly commit itself to sustainable management of wildlife resources—that is the important phrase—then an adherence to the convention should be mandatory. Furthermore, it could probably be argued that, by failing to support the principles behind the convention, the Government run the risk of undermining the internationally agreed conservation goal of sustainable use, and even appearing to condone the non-sustainable use of such resources.
	Without going into the convention in too much detail, there are one or two key issues on which I shall focus. As a general point, wildlife legislation has tended to concentrate too much on a purely protectionist stance. We need to move to a more positive position, whereby active conservation becomes more prevalent and reflects more realistically the principles of sustainable use.
	My amendment specifically refers to Article 6 of the convention. However, the wording of that article is such that it covers the measures set out in the convention as a whole. It would therefore include an obligation under Article 10, for example, to,
	"support local populations"—
	when I talk about "local", I mean "human"—
	"to develop and implement remedial action in degraded areas where biological diversity has been reduced",
	and,
	"encourage co-operation between its governmental authorities and its private sector in developing methods for sustainable use of biological resources".
	There is a greater need for government and their agencies to appreciate the role that the private sector can and, indeed, does play in enhancing biodiversity objectives and to work more closely toward that aim. To that end, Article 8 includes the objective to,
	"respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovation and practices of indigenous and local communities".
	That, again, reflects the fact that local experience and wisdom should be harnessed more effectively to obtain common objectives in wildlife management.
	I recognise that the UK Government have started down the road with their biodiversity action plans for species of conservation concern, but they are not quite as effective as they might be. Their approach is, if I may use the term, rather bland. Furthermore, conservation organisations such as the wildlife trusts and the RSPB have been channelling funds for specific conservation via their nature reserves—whereby the public pay in return for access—which has resulted in positive examples of wildlife management. One good example is the successful osprey breeding programme at Loch Garten.
	A further example of such sustainable wildlife benefits comes indirectly—and here I declare an interest—from grouse moors management. I apologise to those of your Lordships who may have heard me mention these statistics before in debate on the Commons Bill, but they are very important. On the managed moors of the north Pennines, we have in the region of 3,900 pairs of curlew whereas, elsewhere, their numbers appear to be quite unsustainable. Indeed, in the Berwyn SPA in Wales, the number is down to a mere 35 pairs.
	Similarly, golden plover populations on the two Pennine SPAs amount to some 2,150 pairs—in areas managed for grouse—whereas the population in the whole of Wales appears now to have slumped to a mere 85 pairs. That clearly represents a non-sustainable management regime. Positive management is required to try and rectify those ever falling wader populations. A similar report has been produced on Dartmoor, where the golden plover and green plover populations are literally falling out of bed. If that continues along current lines, they will cease to exist there, so positive management is required.
	This amendment is not simply about conserving biodiversity: it promotes the sustainable use of biodiversity via active species management. All wildlife in this country owes its position to man's involvement, and wildlife management must be seen as part of our conservation effort, not separate from it. I should add that that would include flora as well as fauna. One clear example; if we want to encourage bluebells into woodlands it requires a certain type of woodland management through coppicing which would, again, require the careful management of deer.
	There is a real need for more pragmatic and positive moves toward sustainable wildlife objectives, involving all parties in a more constructive dialogue and a realistic approach. This amendment, which simply incorporates into law the United Nations convention on the sustainable use of biodiversity, would go some way toward meeting those objectives. In the parliamentary briefing for the Bill, the three organisations that will form part of Natural England stated that they want to achieve,
	"a clear general purpose that should be enabling rather than prescriptive, inclusive rather than narrow and forward-looking rather than retrospective".
	I suggest that this amendment would greatly enhance the prospects of such objectives being achieved. To do its job effectively, Natural England should have a statutory duty to develop wildlife policies that are sustainable in the long term. That has to embrace positive wildlife management, which must include the word "use". That is crucial.

Lord Rotherwick: I support my noble friend Lady Byford. Last time we were in Committee, the Minister gave me a definition of conserving and enhancing. He said,
	"conserving means protecting from harm or destruction".—[Official Report, 24/1/06; col. 1129.]
	I hope that I do not get noble Lords in a muddle because I seem to get in a big muddle when I go through this. I think that that definition is wrong because when one looks it up in a dictionary, conserving means protecting from harm, decay and loss. If conserving is stopping decay, then it is unnatural in many ways. Clause 2(2)(a) includes "promoting", and the definition of promoting is subtly different. It is encouraging the process or existence. While "conserving" is rather like conserving jam in a jar and all the substance is there, "promoting" is allowing the natural progression of evolution. With climatic change, and while we are talking about a vibrant, living, ever-changing environment, I do not think the two words fit well alongside each other. I hope that we will come back to these arguments later on.
	I do not think I am nitpicking on this. In my dealings with English Nature, I have been somewhat muddled. English Nature wished to carry out scientific enhancement of a particular SSSI woodland, of which I am a caretaker, although that science was not proven. It felt that enhancing the area was better than conserving it. The difference was that it cut down well over 50 mature areas in a SSSI in order to enhance it. English Nature may be right or wrong, but the definitions are not clearly defined. If there were better definition, there would be less argument and confrontation between clients, owners or caretakers and English Nature.
	My noble friend Lady Byford also talked about the question of who has the ultimate say: the JNCC or Natural England. That point is relevant when deciding whether conserving or enhancing is more important. Will the Minister look carefully at these words that sit alongside each other? Perhaps he could come back with a changed wording so that there is less ambiguity when there is a confrontation between Natural England and the client or the caretaker.

Lord Carter: I added my name to Amendment No. 116 simply to ask for clarification, which I hope will be forthcoming. As we have just heard, Natural England will have the general purpose of protecting biodiversity under subsection (2)(a) of this general purpose clause.
	In the very helpful letter that the Minister sent to us all on 19 January, in which he drew our attention to Clause 40 on the duty to conserve biodiversity, he points out that in complying with the purpose of conserving—not protecting, as in the general purpose clause—the Minister of the Crown, a government department or the National Assembly for Wales must have particular regard to the 1992 convention. He continues:
	"it would be wrong to expect all 388 principal local authorities to be fully conversant with the 1992 convention".
	I understand that, but the local authorities are mentioned in Clause 40. They are a public authority, so they have the duty to conserve biodiversity. The Minister need not reply; it would be easier to write to us to explain how the general purpose of protecting biodiversity runs alongside the duty to conserve in Clause 40, and the particular requirement for certain of the public authorities to have regard to the 1992 convention. It is a little confusing.

Earl Peel: The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has made an interesting point. My amendment would apply only to Natural England. It would not apply to local authorities or more widely, so the added bureaucracy to which the Minister's letter referred would not apply.

Lord Grantchester: I, too, rise to speak to Amendment No. 116. As this is the first time that I have spoken in Committee, I declare my interest as a dairy farmer in Cheshire and as a director of the farmers co-operative, Dairy Farmers of Britain. I am grateful to Dr Stephen Tapper of the Game Conservancy Trust for his advice on this matter.
	Following on from my noble friend Lord Carter and the very helpful response from the noble Earl, Lord Peel, I, too, believe that it is important that the sustainable use of biological resources is added to Natural England's list of purposes, and in accordance with the general principles that are agreed internationally. Although Ministers and their departments have signed up to the convention, it could be argued that this would be a hollow agreement if it were not adhered to by the agency most empowered to act in this arena.
	Following the line taken by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, the amendment is pertinent to Natural England and in no way places further bureaucratic burdens on other public bodies. Nor does it expect all 388 principal local authorities to be conversant with international treaties. Internationally, the sustainable use of natural resources has been a key conservation concept ever since the world conservation strategy in 1980 and as recently as the Addis Ababa principles and guidelines for the sustainable use of biodiversity. The sustainable use of wildlife has yet to be properly addressed in UK legislation. Should not Natural England's general purpose reflect the UK's obligations on the sustainable use of wildlife?

Lord Greenway: I sat through our proceedings last week, and was not certain when to make these remarks, which are more general and refer in fact to all these amendments to Clause 2.
	The Minister said in his opening remarks on Clause 2 that the list of activities that fell within the general purpose of the Bill were not necessarily set in stone, but I believe that he also said—I cannot remember his exact words—that the Government had looked at these different interest areas very carefully indeed. I am concerned that the amendments risk upsetting the necessary balance which stems from giving equal weighting to conservation and biodiversity on the one hand and access and recreation on the other and which provides a basis for harmonious working between those different areas.
	Work is already being done by the various interest groups, and I shall briefly cite a couple of examples. The Central Council of Physical Recreation is working with English Nature and the Countryside Agency on the Best of Both Worlds project, and the Royal Yachting Association and the British Marine Federation have their Green Blue initiative. The latter includes a strong education element—that is, educating both the boating public and the industry in best environmental practice. It also flags up current examples of good practice and, in addition, provides a useful index of all academic and professional studies on boating and the environment, something from which all sides could gain benefit.
	I hope that Natural England will embrace these existing projects and ensure that such co-operation continues and, indeed, is built on. As the Minister has said already, the board of Natural England will be quite capable of deciding any contentious matters without its hands being tied by weighting towards any particular interest area in this section of the Bill.
	I make these remarks now because I am conscious that time is moving on. I will not be able to be here when the Committee meets next Wednesday. Therefore, for the reasons I have just mentioned, I should also like to oppose now the inclusion of the Sandford principle in the Bill, in Amendment No. 122. I do not know whether we will reach that amendment today.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: In view of the hour, I shall do my best to be very brief. I declare the same interests as I declared at Second Reading in connection with specific wildlife trusts. I also serve as an officer of the all-party group on the matters with which this group of amendments is concerned.
	I declare not so much an interest as, in the light of the speech of my noble friend Lord Peel on his own amendment, a potential appearance on a charge sheet. My noble friend commented on past legislation. I should confess to the Committee that I served as the government Whip on the 1981 Bill. The Committee sat for 105 hours. It was not guillotined in any way and was staffed, on both sides, by MPs who were passionate about the subject. The principal Ministers on the Bill were my noble friends Lord King of Bridgwater and Lord Monro of Langholm. I would simply defend the enthusiasts who staffed both sides of the Committee. They were inevitably representative of that era in the views that they expressed but there was no question at all about the degree of commitment which they showed to the subject.
	I have taken an interest in more wildlife trusts than those where I have been resident or have represented as an elected representative in the other place. I am greatly encouraged by their advance across the country in the manner described by my noble friend Lord Peel. As a future mover of an amendment to Clause 40, to which he also referred, I strongly support my noble friend in his salience on these matters much earlier in the Bill.

Lord Bach: We have had a very interesting debate to start our proceedings today. I think it is doubtful that we will be able to debate Amendment No. 122, although we shall have to see how the time goes. If we do not debate it tonight, surely we should start with it on Wednesday. Let me deal briefly with these important amendments. I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said in his contribution. I regret that he will not be able to be with us at our next debate.
	It is the Government's case that Amendment No. 111 would upset the delicate balance of the general purpose clause and would not add anything substantial to it. I can reassure the Committee, if it needs reassuring, that all the major stakeholders have had substantial input into the discussions that have resulted in the general purpose clause as currently drafted in Clause 2. Part of the reason for the choice of words in the clause is to provide continuity with the powers and activities of the predecessor bodies. By way of example, promoting nature conservation has been one of the major activities of English Nature. Although biodiversity is a broad term—and I am not suggesting that Natural England would have been prevented from promoting nature conservation—there is merit for both the staff and customers of Natural England in retaining clear links with the existing words in the legislation.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked who was top dog with regard to the various purposes set out in Clause 2(2). As I hoped I had made clear the other day, in our opinion they are not in any particular order. There is no one more important than the other. They are not hierarchical in that sense; they all have equal weight.
	Natural England's general purpose in Clause 2(2) encompasses the JNCC's functions. It has to pursue certain functions through the JNCC, which is not affected by the list in Clause 2(2)(a) to (e). As to who has the final say—Natural England or the JNCC—it does not work like that. Natural England in common with the Countryside Council for Wales and Scottish Natural Heritage can exercise certain functions only through the JNCC, set out in Clause 34(2). That is a nice question when we reach that clause in Committee.
	Natural England's general work on biodiversity will not be affected by the relationship with the JNCC. To put it another way, Natural England's work with the JNCC is a narrow part of its role, and will be constrained by the role of the JNCC set out in that part of the Bill because Natural England's overall role is much broader, and reflected in its purpose. The situation with the other conservation bodies to which I have referred is similar to the one that we propose here.
	We recognise the intent of Amendment No. 113 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, but we believe that the wording in the draft clause better expresses the range of topics that Natural England should cover. You cannot promote without protecting. Equally, protecting implies enhancing. Enhancing biodiversity is also a difficult concept, as it could easily be achieved by importing non-native species.
	I remind the House that the provisions in Clause 2(2)(a) to (e) are not exclusive but are there only to show some of the things included in the general purpose, such as conserving, enhancing and managing the natural environment. Biodiversity is a core component of the natural environment. The choice of items in subsection (2)(a) to (e) is intended to clarify some of the things that are included in the general purpose, but also to show to staff and customers that some of the main functions and activities of the predecessor bodies have been carried forward. We believe that promoting nature conservation and protecting biodiversity is a good description of one such major area of activity.
	The purpose of Natural England is about outcomes that it is there to achieve. We believe that our proposal gives Natural England sufficiently wide powers to further its general purpose, and perhaps to cover the activities that the noble Baroness had in mind.
	We have heard powerful speeches on Amendment No. 116, which was spoken to first by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and then by other noble Lords. I was not certain whether the intention is to replace subsection (2)(b) with this new one, or whether to add it to the list.

A noble Lord: To add it.

Lord Bach: That is rather what we thought. The addition to the general purpose of Natural England, to refer to the Convention on Biological Diversity, as the noble Earl concedes, overlaps with Clauses 41 and 42. While Clauses 40 and 41 do not have the same effect as the intention behind the amendment, our view is that the amendment is still not necessary.
	Clause 42 places a specific duty to have regard to the United Nations Environmental Programme Convention on Biological Diversity on Ministers of the Crown and government departments in England, but does not extend to other public bodies. This is because the convention is an international treaty and relates to actions of governments on biodiversity. But since Natural England will have expertise and statutory functions relevant to the convention, Ministers will obviously look to it to deliver many of its obligations in England. I draw the noble Earl's attention to Clause 41(2), which makes it clear that the Secretary of State must consult Natural England before publishing any list of species of principal importance to the conservation of biodiversity.
	The noble Earl said that the Bill must include positive action to enhance biodiversity. That is included in the general purpose in Clause 2(1), which provides for Natural England to conserve, enhance and manage the natural environment. It is for the board of Natural England to decide precisely how best to enhance biodiversity.
	The points made by the noble Earl and those who support his amendment are important. I want to consider exactly what they have said, without any hint that we might change our minds However, I want to give those well thought-out remarks the respect they deserve. Indeed, it may be possible to debate this again at a later stage in Committee, when we reach Clauses 40 and 41.

Earl Peel: I am very grateful to the Minister for those helpful remarks.

Lord Rotherwick: I should like to raise a small point that I failed to raise before. I do not know if the Minister was aware of it, but the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister produced, either today or recently, a planning policy statement on delivering sustainable development. Under the heading:
	"Protection and enhancement of the environment",
	paragraph 17 says:
	"The Government is committed to protecting and enhancing"—
	there is no conserving here—
	"the quality of the natural and historic environment, in both rural and urban areas".
	Does this mean that the countryside should not be kept in aspect and allowed to evolve in a natural way? As I understand it, the word "conserve" in this Bill means keeping the country as it is, protected in aspect and not allowing it to evolve. The Minister might not want to answer this question until he has seen the statement and, if so, I accept that.

Lord Bach: That is very generous of the noble Lord. I will look at the statement and either in the course of the debate or in writing, I will answer his perfectly proper question.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I hope that the Minister will forgive me for intervening yet again, but his response has convinced me that my concern about this particular part of the Bill is correct. He has convinced me that the Bill itself and the purposes of Natural England are looking backwards. We cannot afford to look backwards any longer; we have heard enough today about the problems of global warming, what is likely to happen to the Iceland ice cap, and so on. Those issues are not mentioned but they will cause fundamental and huge problems for our natural England which, if it is allowed to continue, courtesy of some government agency, will not be natural at all.
	Fortunately, my next amendment has already been debated; I do not need to say any more except that the Minister has confirmed that there is a need for some urgent discussions.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Some of the Minister's remarks were very helpful, and I will read them carefully. On the general purpose, will he enlighten the House about the marine area? That is not mentioned specifically in the Bill, which talks only of landscape and, for a lot of people, the sea does not come under the definition of landscape. English Nature has responsibilities out to a certain limit; are they envisaged to be the same for Natural England, or are the Government considering extending them?

Lord Bach: Not for the first time the noble Baroness has hit on an interesting and important point. We are speaking in many debates at present about how widely affected marine life will be by the Bill. I do not want to give her any false answers, so if she will give me a little longer to answer her properly, I will.

Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for his response. We have started out with an interesting group of three amendments. If I may follow on from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, when we debated the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which was before the Minister's time in his present position, we realised too late that we should have had a section on marine life within the Bill. The House recognised that biodiversity should be included, because we moved an amendment and the Government came back with a replacement amendment, for which we were grateful. At the time they perhaps had not registered the importance of the issue being included in the Bill. That is a byway to bring the Minister up to date.
	I thank noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I pick up particularly on the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Peel. I want him to speak to it first, but it is an important amendment and I am grateful to the Minister, who is going to consider it. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith raised an important point about climate change, which we debated last time. The announcement of the likelihood of water shortages emphasises that that is an urgent issue, which needs addressing.
	I turn briefly to my noble friend Lord Rotherwick's contribution. I was going to raise the question of the report with my next amendment, so I shall not comment on it now. Many of the amendments seek clarification. I wonder whether the Minister in hindsight wishes that the Government had not put in a general purpose clause, as that would have solved many problems. We all know where we want to get to, but having such definitions in the Bill gives the Government problems. When we look at the responsibilities of the JNCC and its purpose, we see that the two do not tie up together, as my amendment suggests.

Lord Bach: If the noble Lady would be kind enough to permit me to speak now, that would assist me in answering not her, on this occasion, but the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about marine life, so that it is on the record. I want to tell the Committee that, as part of the marine Bill, which is being considered in draft at the present time, we are considering widening the scope of marine nature conservation laws and introducing new management schemes to meet our marine conservation aims. Ultimately, we want legislation that ensures that we have the ability to protect marine species and habitats where and when there is a need to do so. That does not answer the noble Baroness's question about this Bill's relevance, but it may be of some use. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for giving way.

Baroness Byford: I am always delighted to give way to receive such news. I thank the Minister. I suspect—unless I am missing a trick—that that measure is being debated as a draft Bill, because I have not seen a copy, but perhaps there is one out. I believe that it is hoped that later in the year a draft Bill will come forward. We await that with great anticipation, because it will be enormously helpful. With those few remarks—in the next amendment, I would like to talk more about the planning policy statement—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 112 and 113 not moved.]

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 114:
	Page 2, line 9, leave out "conserving" and insert "protecting" .

Baroness Byford: The amendment speaks for itself, so I shall not go over the ground that I have already covered. I have before me a copy of the ODPM Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development, which was released today. Certain sections refer to issues that are relevant to this Committee.
	On integrating sustainable development in development plans, the document states:
	"Planning authorities should ensure that sustainable development is treated in an integrated way in their development plans. In particular, they should consider carefully the interrelationship between social inclusion, protecting and enhancing the environment, the prudent use of natural resources and economic development".
	The policy statement later refers to the need for planning authorities to take into account the range of effects, both negative and positive, on the environment of economic development, as well as the economic and social benefits of environmental protection.
	The statement raises other issues. Paragraph 28 states:
	"Planning authorities should demonstrate how their plans are integrating various elements of sustainable development and should seek to achieve outcomes which enable social, environmental and economic objectives to be achieved".
	Paragraph 30, on spatial plans, states:
	"The new system of regional spatial strategies and local development documents should take a spatial planning approach. Spatial planning goes beyond traditional land use planning to bring together and integrate policies for the development and use of land with other policies and programmes which influence the nature of places and how they can function".
	The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, may not have the document in her hands, but it has great relevance to my amendment and others in the group. I therefore draw it to her attention. If she cannot respond today, I would be happy if she did so on Report. I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I shall speak to Amendment No. 115, which is in the same group. It is a probing amendment which explores whether the Government believe that it is a good idea to expect the landscape to be enhanced. "Enhancement" may be a subjective term: one person's enhancement may be another's prettification or gentrification, which are rather undesirable in landscape terms.
	I thank the Minister for his reply about the marine environment. I hope that debate on this clause will underline why, if Natural England is envisaged to have a big part to play in the draft marine Bill, the general purpose clause should be drafted in such a way as to apply to marine areas as well.
	I shall make a couple of remarks on the planning system, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred. She made some important points. Since local development frameworks and regional spatial strategies are forward-looking, local authorities find it easier to accommodate sustainable development and to do a better job. Where there is perhaps still a big gap is in the reactive bit. Technically, the system is known as development control; in shorthand, it is often known as the planning system, because people are applying for planning permission. There is still quite a long way to go in accommodating real sustainable development in material planning considerations.

Lord Rotherwick: I am sorry to be late in rising to support my noble friend Lady Byford. We come back to the theme of trying to make quite sure that we understand what the Government mean in this Bill, and therefore trying to wheedle out of them exactly what it is they mean, then we can proceed along the lines of agreeing or not. Where the amendment leaves out "conserving" and inserts "protecting", I go back again to conserving an environment in the way of conserving an aspect, or in the way of conserving jam with sugar—you keep it exactly as it is, there are no alterations at all. Whereas my understanding of "protecting" is allowing that environment—as I have said, a vibrant, living and changing environment—to have a natural change, and allowing it to account for climate change. I am not sure the example I shall give is particularly good. Let us go back to the bluebell woods. If you have some wonderful bluebell woods which are beginning to get eaten by an ever-growing population of muntjac, do you conserve those woods by culling the muntjac, or do you protect them by allowing the muntjac to breed and diminish that landscape? The difference is that either one allows the landscape to evolve or one does not. How is the Bill meant to be describing this?

Lord Judd: It is very seldom that I find myself not endorsing the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. On this occasion, I am not sure that she is right in her anxieties. It seems to me that there has been a great deal of thought in the drafting of this Bill, and from my own experience, it is sometimes quite clear in a very beautiful part of the landscape that there is something that could be done that would make it even more attractive. The danger is that inadvertently, by removing the "enhancing", you might play into the hands of people who were not prepared to take that step, who were just traditionalists and who were not looking at what could be contributed to future generations by just doing what is obvious. From that standpoint, because so many of your Lordships have emphasised the importance of looking forward, I am sure in a balanced and responsible way, I think the Government are right to have this word "enhancing" in their draft.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps I may deal first with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the issue supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. "Natural environment" and biodiversity do include "marine". Natural England will be a key player in the new Marine Bill discussions, and it is too early yet to know how those discussions will conclude.
	Perhaps I may deal first with "enhance". For the past 40 years, the Countryside Agency has had programmes aimed at enhancing the landscape to improve people's quality of life. There have been popular programmes valued by both local communities and visitors, including, for example, the 12 community forests and the national forest—an area which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and I know well. Nor is "enhancing" restricted to improving the quality of all the worst landscapes. The Countryside Agency took the lead in developing the Thames Landscape Strategy for London, aimed at restoring and enhancing one of the most spectacular metropolitan landscapes in Europe. We do want to see Natural England continue to innovate in this area. We accept that the amendment would not rule that out as the word "enhance" remains in Clause 2(1), but we want to ensure that the staff and customers of Natural England understand that this work will continue—in a way to be decided by the board.
	With regard to the issue of protecting, Natural England will be able to protect landscapes. The word "conserved" in the general purpose includes protection. Since the founding legislation of the Countryside Commission in 1968, the word "conserve" has been applied to landscape. References in existing landscape legislation to "conserve and enhance" have not curtailed the ability of the Countryside Agency to take action to protect landscapes, should that be required. Indeed, we would find the argument in favour of including the word "protecting" more convincing if the Countryside Agency had drawn any attention to an occasion in the past 40 years when the ability of the Countryside Commission, or Countryside Agency, to take action to protect a landscape had been inhibited by its founding legislation, but we can find no evidence of that at all.
	We have a unique geodiversity and flora and fauna that rely on a rich variety of habitats. I can assure noble Lords that the phrase "conserved, enhanced and managed" in the general purpose includes protection of landscapes. We expect Natural England to be a trenchant champion of every aspect of our natural environment, taking action to protect landscapes where that is the priority.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, raised the very interesting point about occasions when there is a conflict. But considering how to help—in that case, artificially—to protect the delicate balance, should it get completely out of hand, is part of the role of enhancing and protecting. That is an area that the noble Earl, Lord Peel, will understand particularly well.
	Some people have argued that "protection" applies to biodiversity, thus elevating its status above landscapes. I need to put on the record here that that is not our intention. Including the word "protecting" in Clause 2(2)(a) in relation to biodiversity prevents any spurious claims that Natural England should support activities that may enhance biodiversity adversely, such as through the introduction of non-native species and genetically modified organisms. I am sure that noble Lords have no intention of weakening that particular protection.
	Following pre-legislative scrutiny at the suggestion of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee, Clause 15 was amended at subsection (3) to include the requirement to consult Natural England and at subsection (6) to include the clarification that Natural England must have regard to guidance. Clause 15(1) on regional planning was also prompted by an EFRA Committee suggestion that Natural England should be under a duty to contribute to regional spatial strategies. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised the issue of the planning system at a very local level. Having served on a local authority's development control committee, I understand only too well the point that she is making because—

Earl Peel: I have never really understood the meaning of "spatial" in this context. Can the noble Baroness spell out exactly what "regional spatial strategy" means?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My understanding is that "spatial" is to do with area, relationships between areas and the management of that dimension. I could be completely wrong. I am fully prepared to accept that I am wrong and, unless the knowledge that I am wrong strikes me very quickly, I will have to hope that I am right and correct my mistake if I am wrong. But I am certain that it is to do not only with the management of space but with the relationship between different things within that area.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: In the debate on the Greater London Authority Bill, back in the late 1990s, we debated a regional spatial strategy. I was foolish enough to say that the concept had come to us from Brussels and that some of my colleagues on the Committee would therefore treat it with suspicion. The Chairman of the Committee, Mr Nicholas Winterton, called me sharply to order and said that I was not to bring such a consideration into the debate. I was wholly delighted when Mr Nicholas Raynsford, replying for the Government, said—without actually alluding to myself—that regional spatial strategy was a concept that was being introduced into our affairs from Brussels, whereupon Mr Winterton apologised to me. My noble friend Lord Peel and I had better have a conversation outside the Chamber.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I understood the noble Earl, Lord Peel, to ask me about the word "spatial"; I did not think that he was asking me a question about the concept of regions. If he was, I apologise, but coming from the north-west of England I am aware that there are regions, and they predate the European Community, let alone the European Union.

Earl Peel: I do not wish to prolong this. The term "regional" I understand fully; it is the combination of "spatial regional strategy" that confuses me. My noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville is going to take me outside and give me a long lesson in what it means, so I will not let the Committee linger any longer on this.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am grateful for that. I misunderstood the purpose of the question; I thought I was being asked to define "spatial" as opposed to "regional". However, I will consider the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about the planning system and whether sustainable development ought to be taken into account to a greater extent in development control. It is not a point that had occurred to me before. I hope that I have covered the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and I hope that she is reassured that the wording favoured by the Government will help to protect the environment in the way she sought in her amendment.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, but I do not know that it does. The debate about where the accent should lie is the sort that one could have all night, and I certainly do not have a mind to do that. My noble friend Lord Rotherwick raises an interesting question about what one does to control muntjac, particularly in woodland areas. Certainly I have an amendment much later on to deal with squirrels—grey squirrels in particular. That is a similar problem and, in parts of England, it is becoming a very real problem. I digress, and time is short; I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 115 and 116 not moved.]

The Duke of Montrose: moved Amendment No. 117:
	Page 2, line 10, leave out paragraph (c).

The Duke of Montrose: Amendment No. 117 would remove from Natural England's general purpose,
	"securing the provision and improvement of facilities for the study, understanding and enjoyment of the natural environment".
	It is an admirable sentiment, but it does not make a constructive addition to Natural England's sense of purpose. It shows that Natural England will aspire to provide great things, but that is all it does. I beg to move.

Lord Judd: I have before explained my interests to the Committee and I shall not bore the Committee by going over them again. Frankly, I believe that this amendment is very unfortunate—and I am sorry to say so but, as the hour is late, I shall be blunt. Why are we conserving or protecting? We are doing it so that our people can enjoy what is there to be protected. In any way to suggest that somehow we are going to put it in a glass cage, which people can look at from a distance but in which they cannot participate—when they cannot feel the joys of what is being preserved—would be a very retrograde and sad step. The Government have got the balance, and the purposes that have been spelt out, absolutely right. Therefore, I suggest that the amendment is not one to be endorsed.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: For the record, I greatly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd. Going back to his previous comments, I bow to his much greater experience in these things. I am slightly surprised at the amendment, because we spent so much time during the passage of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 pleading for more provisions to enable people to understand the countryside better. Perhaps it is a probing amendment, but I certainly could not agree with the spirit of it, for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, so eloquently spelt out.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I must admit that I was rather puzzled by the noble Duke's support for this amendment, which would remove the provision and improvement of facilities for the study, understanding and enjoyment of the natural environment from the inclusive list of objectives included in Natural England's purpose. Helping people to study, understand and enjoy the natural environment has been an important part of the work of both the Countryside Agency and English Nature since the 1940s. "Facilities" is interpreted widely and includes everything from direct provision in the case of English Nature's national nature reserves, through grants towards visitor facilities, to websites and media projects aimed at children. My noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, share our view of an increasing need for action in this area. It makes a crucial long-term contribution towards sustainable development.
	The general purpose in Clause 2(1) remains broad, so Natural England could continue activities in pursuit of these objectives even if the subsection was removed. But we prefer to keep it, since it both signals continuity with previous legislation and tells staff and customers that action to achieve these objectives will certainly form part of the body's work.
	I hope that on that basis the noble Duke will feel able to withdraw this amendment and will consider very carefully the value of this work, especially in teaching those from a more urban background how the countryside works and in helping them to understand and to become part of the protection and enhancement of the countryside.

The Duke of Montrose: I thank the Minister for her remarks. Although there is an element of probing in the amendment, we must bear in mind the fact that we are discussing the major purposes of Natural England. Without any prioritisation or anything else, they were all going to stand absolutely equal. We may have to go away and find out whether, in continuity with previous legislation, this purpose had equal standing in previous legislation with the main purposes of bodies that we are replacing.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: If it will help the noble Duke, I should tell him that it did.

The Duke of Montrose: That is certainly very helpful. At this stage, although we may consider the matter further later on, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 118 to 121 not moved.]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: This would be an appropriate moment for the Committee to adjourn. I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at ten o'clock.

Criminal Defence Service Bill [HL]

Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and a privilege amendment; it was ordered that the Commons amendments be printed.
	Monday, 30 January 2006.